Class-Action Alleging Fortnite Is Addictive Will Go Ahead, Judge Rules (www.cbc.ca) 144
"The CBC is reporting that a class action lawsuit against Epic Games over Fortnite being addictive to children will go ahead," writes Slashdot reader lowvisioncomputing. From the report: The suit was first brought to the courts in 2019 by three Quebec parents who claimed that Fortnite was designed to addict its users, many of them children, to the game. According to the original filing, the plaintiffs say their children exhibited troubling behaviors, including not sleeping, not eating, not showering and no longer socializing with their peers. According to the filing, one of the children was diagnosed with an addiction by an on-call doctor at a Quebec clinic, or CLSC, in the Lower St. Lawrence region. It also notes that the World Health Organization (WHO) recognized addictive gaming disorder as a disease in 2018.
Jean-Philippe Caron, one of the CaLex Legal lawyers working on the suit, said the case isn't unlike a 2015 Quebec Superior Court ruling that found tobacco companies didn't warn their customers about the dangers of smoking. "[The game] has design patterns that make sure to always encourage player engagement. You have to understand that children's prefrontal cortices are still developing so that could be part of the explanation for why this game is particularly harmful," he said. The class action will also discuss in-game purchases, namely cosmetic items -- known as skins -- and the game's Battle Pass system, which offers expanded rewards as players level up.
The children allegedly spent excessive amounts of money on V-Bucks -- an in-game currency users buy with real money -- which can be exchanged for skins or used to unlock the Battle Pass. One of the children reportedly spent over $6,000 on skins, while another spent $600 on V-Bucks -- items Superior Court Judge Sylvain Lussier described as "without any tangible value." That may run afoul of Article 1406 of Quebec's civil code, where "serious disproportion between the prestations of the parties" -- meaning, the obligation to provide something in turn -- "creates a presumption of exploitation."
Jean-Philippe Caron, one of the CaLex Legal lawyers working on the suit, said the case isn't unlike a 2015 Quebec Superior Court ruling that found tobacco companies didn't warn their customers about the dangers of smoking. "[The game] has design patterns that make sure to always encourage player engagement. You have to understand that children's prefrontal cortices are still developing so that could be part of the explanation for why this game is particularly harmful," he said. The class action will also discuss in-game purchases, namely cosmetic items -- known as skins -- and the game's Battle Pass system, which offers expanded rewards as players level up.
The children allegedly spent excessive amounts of money on V-Bucks -- an in-game currency users buy with real money -- which can be exchanged for skins or used to unlock the Battle Pass. One of the children reportedly spent over $6,000 on skins, while another spent $600 on V-Bucks -- items Superior Court Judge Sylvain Lussier described as "without any tangible value." That may run afoul of Article 1406 of Quebec's civil code, where "serious disproportion between the prestations of the parties" -- meaning, the obligation to provide something in turn -- "creates a presumption of exploitation."
I gotta feeling (Score:4, Funny)
Cheese and Rice (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, and it is not even within the whole of parental purview to prevent their offspring from spending excess dollars and time on an online video game.
Asking the courts to step in where parenting fails should be reserved for only the most dire of failures.
Re: (Score:3)
It's still an interesting discussion to be had. Social media and video games are designed to be as addictive as possible, with extensive research done on how to trigger every important neuron and at the most opportune moment to make the victim as addicted as possible.
If video games/social media/internet are considered addictive, then should there be laws around them? After all, you wouldn't want a heroin peddler walking around in school grounds, why would an E-heroin peddler be okay?
Plenty of studies about
Re: Cheese and Rice (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a broad spectrum of addiction that includes not just the medium but also an individual's genetic predisposition and how or whether they can cope. I think in a free society the government shouldn't be stepping in unless there's a clear addictive connection that adversely affects a large proportion of users, where that proportion can shrink depending on the degree of adversity. And if the government decides to step in, it needs to be justifiably enforceable in a cos
I don't think it really is (Score:2)
It's not reasonable to expect a parent to recognize when those kind of manipulative tactics are being used at that scale. It literally requires a trained profession because it was a trained professional that came up with them.
Remember, these games are often preying on the unwell. i.e. Whales. People, including kids, with vario
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Should ANYTHING be age restricted in your view? Certainly parents should be able to keep their offspring away from alcohol, tobacco, energetic and volatile chemicals, etc.
I am all for parental responsibility but its also true
1) Parents can't generally supervise children 100% of the time. In fact increasingly society is enabling places like schools to "protect the privacy" of minors even from the legal guardians (which is fucking evil IMHO)
2) As children grow we have to start affording them some freedom to
Re: (Score:2)
Asking the courts to step in where parenting fails should be reserved for only the most dire of failures.
You're confusing the issue with a person and a society. I'm not addicted to gambling, so we should just remove any and all regulations, around it because if I can demonstrate free will anyone can! - Except they can't, and we can see that. And while it's one thing to blame shitty parents for being shitty parents, that doesn't help fill society with functioning people who don't suffer from various forms of destructive addiction.
The courts aren't here to fix one parent.
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL but to be fair, there seems to be a growing amount of US cases existing now which seems to precedent the idea that the state is entitled to overrule parents in even the most private of decisions that aren't emergencies.
I don't agree with it, but I can see that when the state begins to pre-empt parental judgement where it's not immediately about absolute safety of the child, there might be a logic implying that as parental authority is restrained, someone ELSE must therefore bear the responsibility for
Re:Cheese and Rice (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes
Yes
C'mon, this isn't rocket surgery. Hell, the parents had to pay to get internet installed and get things hooked up....the internet and home network don't just magically appear out of nowhere.
And even if a parent doesn't have the tech to have an automated timer set to grant/reject access to certain computers, the old time worn method works.
Remove the fucking laptop from the kids bedroom if they don't turn it off.
How about the even older one...put the computer children can access in a "public" room in the house they can easily monitor.
Hell, I was raised to actually obey my parents. If they told me it was time to turn the TV off, I did so, no questions asked.
Do parents not discipline their children anymore?Who is in charge in family houses these days?
C'mon....seriously, this is NOT that difficult.
Be a parent!!!
Re: (Score:3)
Who is in charge in family houses these days?
C'mon....seriously, this is NOT that difficult.
Be a parent!!!
Let's take a moment to look at these parents. Many have multiple addictive/morally wrong behaviors themselves - smoking, drinking, drugs, vaping, obese from over-eating, addicted to social media, lie, cheat on their taxes, abusive (it's no coincidence that 7 of the top 10 killers are lifestyle diseases) - "Why can't these fucking adults CONTROL themselves? They're behaving like kids!"
Be a parent? They can't even take care of themselves properly.
So when a kid hears "stop playing that game!", a game tha
Re: (Score:3)
I don't see what addiction they are targeting, other than drive for competition and social engagement. Kids want to spend most of their time in these kinds of activities and for these kinds of activities the internet has become a very convenient way to access them, add some winner take all and you get online multiplayer game and social media du jour.
Some online games target gambling impulses on top of that, but that's not what the major kids game are doing. If it wasn't fortnite/roblox/minecraft it would be
Re: (Score:3)
Are you telling me, that you posit that the majority of adult parents in the US have all these problems? You are saying it is that pervasive in our society?
Wow...I've not run into it where I live.
Where do you live where most parents are this bad off?
No, I'm positing that the majority of people have at least a few of these problems. And it is definitely pervasive in society. As an example, most people are overweight, 42% are overweight to the point of obesity per the CDC. Canada isn't quite there yet, but it's a definite problem and a burden on the economy and the health care system.
Lifestyle diseases kill 7 out of 10 people, and by definition are preventable by altering lifestyle. So we have a situation where the majority of people are basically kill
Re: (Score:3)
C'mon, this isn't rocket surgery [...] Be a parent!!!
As a parent who does most of the things mentioned by you and other posters mention (other than corporate punishment), none of this should be considered easy in 2022. I was a child of the 80's, and raising kids back then had nothing on raising kids today. I never bugged my parents for a cellphone in grade school, because they didn't exist. I didn't have to worry about social media making the bullying even worse. Games of my day struggled to make a few dozen pixels look like a person. My kids get significantl
Re: (Score:3)
Success against true addiction requires a set of environmental and personal changes. This probably means new friends, new hobbies, different parenting practices, removing devices from the home, accountability mechanisms, and regular connection with a mentor to help you along.
Fighting a true addiction is no joke and can't be solved by trying to make the addicting
Re: (Score:3)
It will work for adults if you put them in jail, for as long as they are in jail.
Kids defacto are in jail for a long time, with some conditional and temporary release every day.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea is to not let it go to addiction. My Dad used to kick me out of the house all the time to go play outside when I was a kid in the 80's instead of sitting around playing Nintendo which is exactly what I would have done had he not interfered. Sure I didnt like it but he took no debate on the subject, meanwhile I feel I'm much better off for at least most of that now that I'm an adult.
Of course the environment of paranoia modern kids are raised in nowadays doesnt really lend itself to playing outside.
Re: (Score:3)
Do parents not discipline their children anymore?Who is in charge in family houses these days?
C'mon....seriously, this is NOT that difficult.
Be a parent!!!
FTA "not sleeping, not eating, not showering and no longer socializing with their peers.
And none of these things ever happened before Fortnite - never I tell you!
They must have had Fortnite vacuum tube version when I was in Junior High back in the '60s, cuz we had some kids just like that.
Re: (Score:2)
So we have an entire industry devoted to making these things as addictive as possible, with real hard science behind how to trigger that behaviour and exploit it and your solution is too... beat kids.
It won't help but at least you get to feel righteous while you get your jollies.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes
Bad advice, both legally and parenting wise [wikipedia.org].
No, th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I can tell you're not a parent from your response, but hell, surely you know parents control their children through means other than beating the shit out of them.
It's not that simple (Score:2)
It'd be like banning them from Christmas and Halloween. Or from video games entirely. Yeah, you can do it, but you've just cut them out of entire friend groups. Kid's do water cooler talk too you know.
I've mentioned this before, but there's a lot of "all or nothing" thinkin
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, you can do it, but you've just cut them out of entire friend groups.
Just like forcing a kid to stay home as temporary punishment might do.
there's a lot of "all or nothing" thinking going on right now
Yeah, you? Their computer doesn't have to stay taken away. I think you missed the point.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh... take their computer away. Disconnect them from the internet. Yes, ground them.
there's a lot of "all or nothing" thinking going on right now
Yeah, you? Their computer doesn't have to stay taken away. I think you missed the point.
I think you failed to read the thread.
Re: It's not that simple (Score:2)
Fortnite is a social thing now. Am I the only one old enough to remember the weird little Morman or Jehovah Witness kids that got bullied in school?
The weird little kids are all playing Fortnight now. The well adjusted ones are hanging around others who play outside, study and otherwise improve themselves. I'll put my schoolyard gang up against the Fortnight dweebs and see who gets pushed around.
Re: (Score:2)
which is also part of important character building. You won't be included in everything as an adult and kids need to learn they can't expect to be at some point.
as to those weird little kids, probably most of them learned they supposed to be 'a part but apart from society' that is part in parcel with being a decent person, Christian or otherwise because there very little decent about our society these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So how do you expect them to set an example for their kids without the kids picking up that they're just hypocrites? It's like the parents who tell their kids not to smoke while they're puffing away.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Parents who are struggling are no longer responsible for their children. Got it.
No, parents aren't responsible for the design, implementation, and damage of a game that was designed to be addictive and illegally targeted at under-13-year-olds under Quebec's Consumer Protection Act.
Epic's fault. Epic has to obey by the rules in every jurisdiction it operates in. Same as Twitter and Facebook have to remove every single mention of swastikas that might be visible to users in Germany or face fines of 10,000 Euros a day per post. Funny how they're able to properly moderate posts when the
Re: (Score:2)
Heroin being addictive is common knowledge. Parents ought to be responsible what their wretched spawn choose to shoot up. We couldn't possible cut into corporate profits and free speech by banning anyone from selling it to kids.
Re: (Score:3)
Unless these children have jobs (or otherwise have somehow found an income), I suspect this...
..was actually paid by the parents rather than the kids. So the obvious solution is: don't fund the kids' addiction. If little Bobby Tables wants fentanyl and says "dad, I need some fentanyl money'; drop table payment_controls" dad can decide against buying it, rather than in favor of the purch
Re: Cheese and Rice (Score:2)
Let Bobby show up for his McDonalds shifts and get paid, if he needs fentanyl so badly.
Bobby can't hold down job at McD if his motivation is to get money and get high. What does seem to work is to rob a convenience store when the need arises. If any skills for saving and delaying gratification remain, it's usually to buy a gun and step up to big time armed robbery.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't hard to prevent physical access to a device.
Parenting (Score:5, Insightful)
It's funny that some parents who don't agree on their kids playing so much Fortnite find it easier to sue Epic Games than asserting their authority as parents and just forbidding their kids to play it.
Poor kids, they deserve better parents.
Re: (Score:3)
It's funny that some parents who don't agree on their kids playing so much Fortnite find it easier to sue Epic Games than asserting their authority as parents and just forbidding their kids to play it.
Poor kids, they deserve better parents.
There's a fine line for parents to walk here. On the one hand there's keeping an eye on what kids are doing to keep them safe and out of trouble. On the other there's allowing them to get to know themselves and to become self-motivating and self-reliant. That 'fine line' is far from straight...
I support the principle of this suit - software and website designers clearly and purposefully make their products addictive, and they need to be held to account. But in this specific case I agree that if kids can spe
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You show me a child that watches others for good habits, considers them carefully, does a cost/benefit, arrives at a rationally considered decision, and implements it. In the meantime I'll show you a thousand who have to fall off the bicycle and lose some skin before figuring out that the ramp isn't stiff enough.
My mother is phenomenal with money, with huge benefits. My father started as a barber, and she sorted mail. They retired with paid off homes, a fully funded future, and a full life lived. I have no
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Parenting (Score:2)
I don't know. Are you lying? Because all you said is, "Everybody knows!" without actually naming anybody.
And don't discount the anecdote too quickly. I'll give you another one. Line up every parent who can claim, "I modeled great behaviour and everything worked out as expected!" In the other line we'll put all the parents who ever had the opportunity to use a phrase like, "I don't know where they got that from! They certainly didn't get it from home."
Re: (Score:3)
It's funny that some parents who don't agree on their kids doing drugs find it easier to advocate for laws and law enforcement to punish drug dealers than asserting their authority as parents and just forbidding their kids to use drugs.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thousands? Tens of thousands? An overdose doesn't always have to result in death to be counted. Long term or permanent harm (including psychological) will suffice for the definition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most social media is addictive. Fortnite is an example of a game with a highly addictive social element. In both instances, they were designed to be addictive.
I see nuance isn't one of your finer points.
And if you drank Folger's because they artificially manipulated the caffeine content to be high enough to be addictive, yes, you could sue Folgers. Same as the tobacco companies were caught manipulating nicotine levels in tobacco to make it more addictive.
But seriously - Folgers? Yuck!
Re: (Score:2)
Why does that matter?
A thing sold to children for profit that is designed to be addictive is illegal. Demonstrating harm of any sort, to any degree, is irrelevant.
The drug analogy is just to highlight how condescending and dismissive the "blame the parents" argument is. "Why should a company that's breaking the law be held accountable, when the parents could be constantly looking over their kid's shoulder? It's really the children's fault for falling for the traps, when you think about it..."
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you advocating for banning all games, or just the fun ones? Perhaps the Canadian government can create an agency to evaluate games to ensure they aren't too enjoyable. Will this resolve the problem for you, or do you want to dig a deeper hole to contain your incredibly flawed analogy?
First, this has nothing to do with the Canadian government.
Second, this IS about targeting minors, including children under 13, to sell them stuff, which happens to be illegal under Quebec's Consumer Protection Act.
Same as you can't sell booze, lottery tickets, etc., to kids because they're too young to make informed choices, or even legally consent.
Addictive behavior is addictive behavior, whether it's drugs or Fortnite. So the analogy between drugs sold in school yards and video games designed to p
Re: (Score:2)
First, this has nothing to do with the Canadian government.
I apologize, I was under the impression that was the party responsible for "laws and law enforcement" in Canada. Is there some sort of Council of Beavers that handles this sort of thing on their behalf?
Second, this IS about targeting minors, including children under 13, to sell them stuff, which happens to be illegal under Quebec's Consumer Protection Act.
Is it? That isn't what's being argued in the case, and certainly isn't what the poster I was responding to was talking about, but I guess I do look pretty foolish if you take what I wrote and pretend it was in response to this completely different point. Good work!
Same as you can't sell booze, lottery tickets, etc., to kids because they're too young to make informed choices, or even legally consent.
Addictive behavior is addictive behavior, whether it's drugs or Fortnite. So the analogy between drugs sold in school yards and video games designed to provoke addictive behavior in kids, is entirely valid. And you'll notice that both are done for profit, not "so people can have fun." Follow the money.
By all means, let's follow that money.
Re: (Score:2)
First, this has nothing to do with the Canadian government.
I apologize, I was under the impression that was the party responsible for "laws and law enforcement" in Canada. Is there some sort of Council of Beavers that handles this sort of thing on their behalf?
Second, this IS about targeting minors, including children under 13, to sell them stuff, which happens to be illegal under Quebec's Consumer Protection Act.
Is it? That isn't what's being argued in the case, and certainly isn't what the poster I was responding to was talking about, but I guess I do look pretty foolish if you take what I wrote and pretend it was in response to this completely different point. Good work!
If you had read the summary (never mind TFA) you would have known that this is about Quebec law. Not Canadian law. Same as you have federal, state, and municipal laws in the US, you have federal, state/territorial, and municipal laws in Canada.
So cut the snark.
The difference is that you aren't talking about prohibiting children from having access to all video games, which was the whole goddamn point of my post, you apparently illiterate twit. How, precisely, does one delineate between an addicting game and a non-addicting game? Who is making that call? On its face, the case as related in the article does not criticize the game simply for allowing players to spend money. The problem is it allows them to spend money and it's addictive. This isn't a demonstrable chemical property of a substance.
And yet Quebec has managed to come up with such a legal framework for differentiating between addictive and non-addictive games, to the point of winning a judge's approval to launch a class action lawsuit against Epic over the addictive qualities of
Re: Parenting (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny that some parents who don't agree on their kids playing so much Fortnite find it easier to sue Epic Games than asserting their authority as parents and just forbidding their kids to play it.
Poor kids, they deserve better parents.
So you want parents to be "helicopter parents?" So their kids never grow up? Because that's the destination you're driving to.
Epic Games designed Fortnite to be highly addictive. And they succeeded. That's their business model - pushing addiction. No better than the drug dealers hanging around the school yards.
If it's okay to go after drug dealers, how is it not okay to go after Epic? Responsible parents would definitely be the ones going after both the drug pushers and Epic. It's called "cutting off t
Re: (Score:2)
So you want parents to be "helicopter parents?" So their kids never grow up? Because that's the destination you're driving to.
Are there only two parenting modes? Is it a stark choice between "the little bastard is someone else's problem" and "I'm going to climb up their asshole and set up camp until they turn 18"?
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny that some parents who don't agree on their kids playing so much Fortnite find it easier to sue Epic Games than asserting their authority as parents and just forbidding their kids to play it. Poor kids, they deserve better parents.
I think these kinds of "blame the parents" comments are off the mark.
Our job as parents is to help our children "fledge", i.e. set them on a good trajectory so (1) they gradually ramp up in their ability to deal with the world, expose them to more and more, until by the time they're 18 or so they've reached the ability to get by on their own by without too many calamitous mistakes, (2) their minds will be set to continue learning and growing in a good way past then.
We naturally have to gradually expose them
Heh. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Scarily true...
How did a kid get $6000??? (Score:2)
W. T. F.!!!
How exactly did some kid get his hands on $6000 without parental permission/control to spend on -anything-?
I got some token allowance as a kid to spend on candy and learn the basics of budgeting. I didn't even know what a $20 looked like until I earned one.
$6000?!?!
Jfc
Re: How did a kid get $6000??? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why cant each member link their own card and pay for shit out of their own accounts like normal people we are trying to turn them into?
Because minors can't be bound by contracts. Which is what a credit card agreement is. So somebody has to be on the hook to pay for stuff. Apple (and others) are betting that after a few parental blocks and the ensuing autistic fits kids will throw, parents will just give up, unblock the account and pay for peace and quiet.
Re: (Score:2)
Why cant each member link their own card and pay for shit out of their own accounts like normal people we are trying to turn them into?
Because minors can't be bound by contracts. Which is what a credit card agreement is. So somebody has to be on the hook to pay for stuff. Apple (and others) are betting that after a few parental blocks and the ensuing autistic fits kids will throw, parents will just give up, unblock the account and pay for peace and quiet.
Kids can have debit cards in their own names, and their own bank account, with parental consent. No money in the kid's account? Go babysit, shovel sidewalks, or mow some lawns, kid.
Re: (Score:2)
Then that's the behavior that should give rise to a lawsuit, or to parents doing putting on their grown-up pants and dealing with moody children. If the software is aimed at kids, but doesn't have a way to limit how much they are spending, that's a problematic choice by the software maker. But "the software is fun to use" isn't a tort, and neither is "I won't say no to my kids".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you are forced to use a linked credit card (and its smart enough to reject prepaid cards and debit cards now).
Pretty sure Apple gift cards still work. I can buy them in a low denomination (say $5) using credit card rewards. You might have to link a credit card initially for cheap age verification, but after that you can remove it. Apple requires a payment method on file to enable the family sharing, but it doesn't have to be a credit card.
Ironically, as a Google user I don't know Google's policies because I'm usually helping someone else. My kids are too young for this still.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The kind that uses temporary credit card authorizations as a cheap age verification system. Anyone can have a prepaid card.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't even know what a $20 looked like until I earned one.
Earned? Cute. What makes you think this child used their money, or even had permission to spend it?
Some games are in fact evil (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've had a few games become habitual, but I wouldn't call them addictive. More like, "I'm really stressed, this will shut my brain off for a few hours".
That is actually addiction, sir.
Re: (Score:2)
That is actually addiction, sir.
It's addiction if it causes negative effects, whether you're using it as an escape is not the relevant part.
Uh, advertising in general (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see much difference between this and putting advertisements for action figures in the cartoons for those figures. The vast majority of what passes for culture in the US (and Canada as America's hat) is just one big addiction to consumer stuff. If Fortnite is criminally responsible, then so are Disney, Mattel, Coke, Nike, Amazon, etc, etc.
Actually, directing such cartoons, and all other advertising directed at kids under 13, has been illegal in Quebec for quite some time [gouv.qc.ca], as per the Consumer Protection Act. Makes shopping a bit easier when tots aren't whining for whatever they saw on TV.
The Consumer Protection Act prohibits commercial advertising that targets children under the age of thirteen. The Office de la protection du consommateur oversees compliance with this prohibition.
Understanding the rules in force
We are making the guide titled Advertising Directed at Children under 13 Years of Age Cet hyperlien s’ouvrira dans une nouvelle fenêtre available to help you understand the scope of the legislative provisions that apply in Québec. Among other things, this guide presents the criteria that the Office uses to determine whether an ad is aimed at children.
Talking to children about advertising
Are you the parent of a child under 13 years of age? Are you a teacher? The Office offers 2 resources to help you make children aware of the effects of advertising. In addition, you can refer to the document titled Your kids and ads Cet hyperlien s’ouvrira dans une nouvelle fenêtre.
Teacher Zone
The Teacher Zone Cet hyperlien s’ouvrira dans une nouvelle fenêtre offers a collection of activities to be done in the classroom, regardless of the grade you are teaching. Learn about the activities that deal with advertising Cet hyperlien s’ouvrira dans une nouvelle fenêtre. Among other things, they will help students:
become aware that advertising is all around them;
develop good judgment and critical thinking about advertising.
Parent Zone The Parent Zone Cet hyperlien s’ouvrira dans une nouvelle fenêtre is a practical tool for parents who want to help their elementary or high-school aged children develop critical thinking about consumer issues, learn about their rights as consumers and be able to exercise their recourse options. Among other things, you will find various activities dealing with the subject of advertising, based on the children’s age.
You don't see little kids having melt-downs in the grocery store because they want a particular cereal they saw advertised on a cartoon on Saturday morning.
Re: (Score:3)
If Fortnite is criminally responsible, then so are Disney, Mattel, Coke, Nike, Amazon, etc, etc.
Agreed. Let's do them too. Next, concurrently, whatever.
Re: (Score:3)
If Fortnite is criminally responsible, then so are Disney, Mattel, Coke, Nike, Amazon, etc, etc.
Funny you mention coke in the list. There's a reason coke isn't allowed to run ads during children shows in many countries.
There's a difference between general advertisement, and targeting teenagers and children specifically with a highly addictive practice. Simple marketing is not the same thing as employing entire teams of behavioural psychologists to tweak a product in order to keep people hooked. Speaking of hooked, you know the difference between a child seeing a Disney commercial and a child seeing a
This would cause a huge problem (Score:2)
One of the children reportedly spent over $6,000 on skins, while another spent $600 on V-Bucks -- items Superior Court Judge Sylvain Lussier described as "without any tangible value." That may run afoul of Article 1406 of Quebec's civil code, where "serious disproportion between the prestations of the parties" -- meaning, the obligation to provide something in turn -- "creates a presumption of exploitation."
So if this was to go forward, imagine the issues it would cause. Since you are not receiving anything
Re: (Score:2)
One of the children reportedly spent over $6,000 on skins, while another spent $600 on V-Bucks -- items Superior Court Judge Sylvain Lussier described as "without any tangible value."
So if this was to go forward, imagine the issues it would cause. Since you are not receiving anything "tangible" it triggers this. If I go to the movies or a play or a concert, am I receiving something "tangible"?
Yes. The ticket or code or whatever has tangible value since it gets you into the venue.
Re: (Score:2)
But what is the different between getting into a venue and getting the use of a skin in game as far as "tangible"? Tangible is general used to indicate physical objects. I am receiving nothing physical from being able to watch a movie. When it is over, I have nothing I didn't already have (except for the experience obviously). So what would make the temporary use of a seat in a theater different than the temporary use of a skin in a game?
Re: This would cause a huge problem (Score:2)
Great. Then the code you get tomunlo k your item has tangible value.
The sweet smell of success! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There's arguably a fundamental difference between making something as fun as possible and having the fun be addictive, and literally hiring addiction experts to figure out specifically how to take advantage of addictive patterns to make something more addictive without making it more fun. You can do both things in one game.
Re: (Score:3)
Game developers didn't do anything. Behavoural psychologists (which Epic employs) did. All game developers did was follow instructions.
Society should sue parents. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That can't do their damn job.
Another person who doesn't understand the difference between a tree and a forest. Hint: A single parent doesn't have an impact on society. A company producing something highly addictive that is very VERY similar behaviourally to gambling and marketing it to basically every child out there does have an impact.
Re: Society should sue parents. (Score:2)
Countersue the parents (Score:2)
I Can't Control Myself - It's Your Fault! (Score:2)
It's just a rewards program. (Score:3)
As a parent of two Fortnite'ers (12 and 14) who are absolutely in love with Fortnite (especially Chapter 4 Season 1), and who have their internet access closely monitored via pretty simple means (we just turn off their access via our Eero), this sounds ridiculous. Even if the parent's are not technically sophisticated they can take devices away, turn off the power to the router, etc. There are ways.
Does Fortnite reward consistent play? Yes it does. Does that make it addictive? If it does then any rewards program could fall prey to the same argument. EPIC rewards me for playing the game. United rewards me for flying. Home Depot rewards me for doing home improvements. Etc. Does that mean that United's rewards program is trying to addict me to flying or Home Depot's to doing home improvements?
I'm sorry their children suffer from addictive conditions but blaming EPIC isn't the solution to their problem. Restricting their children's access to their devices, the Internet, and sources of money to spend online are.
It's not easy (Score:3)
First it's Fortnite... (Score:2)
...just wait until some of those sue-happy people discover Bun Bo Hue.
BS.. (Score:2)
Educational Opportunities (Score:2)
Back in my day, if you wanted a new skin, you had to learn 3D modeling, texturing, rigging, programming, etc..
Launched my entire career.
Fortnite should just let people add their own skins (with moderation) and release a course for using Blender. Then they can say "think of the children! if we don't let them play fortnite they won't learn all these valuable tools!" and then the lazy (smart) ones can keep buying loot boxes or whatever.
Message: make games boring and worse (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Should we actually direct our children and parent them by limiting their access to unhealthy behaviors and entertainment? Fuck no. Let's sue the company that makes the thing they like and I did nothing to stop them from using. That's surely the way. CPS should remove the kids from anyone suing here.
You are exhibiting symptoms of a well-known cognitive distortion - "black and white thinking." To paraphrase, it's all or nothing, two choices, there's no shades of grey, no nuance.
There's no reason why parents can't exert parental authority AND sue Epic. By suing Epic, they're extending the reach of their parental authority to the perps.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people find exercise and going to the gym addictive, due to how it makes them feel, do you stop that too? Seriously though, friends of mine who didn't play games growing up and those that did have a clear difference in thought process. The question is, was this thought process derived via the introduction of gaming or a pre-existing mental state? Games have been addictive for 40 years, why is it different now?
Games with promises of rewards have always been addictive. cf: gambling. And there's always been a certain portion of the population who simply can't self-regulate. That's why we regulate gambling. Unfortunately, governments have become addicted to the revenue from regulated gambling, even though that revenue is more than offset by the increased costs to society of such stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, gambling is regulated so it can be tracked and taxed.
That this incidentally restricts the associated loansharking and addictions is not the purpose. Perhaps for society, but not for government tasked with enforcing such restrictions.