Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Canada Games

Class-Action Alleging Fortnite Is Addictive Will Go Ahead, Judge Rules (www.cbc.ca) 144

Posted by BeauHD from the addicting-games dept.
"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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Class-Action Alleging Fortnite Is Addictive Will Go Ahead, Judge Rules More

Class-Action Alleging Fortnite Is Addictive Will Go Ahead, Judge Rules

Comments Filter:

  • I gotta feeling (Score:4, Funny)

    by e3m4n ( 947977 ) on Friday December 09, 2022 @09:12AM (#63116252)
    That Im addicted to Fortnite. https://youtu.be/wg9D4IKKdu8 [youtu.be]

  • Cheese and Rice (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rmdingler ( 1955220 ) on Friday December 09, 2022 @09:22AM (#63116280) Journal

    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.

    • 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

      • Parents probably too consumed with their own e-addictions to notice their kids addictions. Youre not wrong about research. There are conferences every year that the socials send their lead programmers to, that discuss in detail addictive behaviors and how to exploit them. Much like meat processing plants have a science to get the most cuts out of livestock with the least waste. We are digital cattle.
      • Good points! Sounds like the video game & (anti-)social media industries need to be regulated like the gaming/gambling industry.
    • these companies hire psychologist and psychiatrist to manipulate players into engagement & purchases. I think that's a little bit outside the purview of said parental unit.

      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
    • Maybe they and it is still causing issues?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by DarkOx ( 621550 )

      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

    • 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.

    • 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

  • Parenting (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dapuertas ( 7923004 ) on Friday December 09, 2022 @09:26AM (#63116286)

    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.

    • 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

      • Kids mostly learn self-regulation by example, i.e. they observe those around them self-regulating, see the benefits &/or just think "That's who we are & how we do things." & imitate it. However, children also have underdeveloped executive functions that are necessary to self-regulate effectively, so parents, caregivers, teachers, etc., have to take on that responsibility for them until they're well-developed & independent enough to take on those responsibilities for themselves, bit by bit, s

        • 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

          • I go by decades of research & experts in developmental psychology & childcare practitioners. You go by what you can remember of anecdotal 2nd & 3rd hand evidence from n=2. Who do you think has a better chance of being right?

            • 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."

    • 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=

      • How many video game overdoses are there each year?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by PPH ( 736903 )

          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.

          • So .0001-.001 percent of the total gaming population. Sound the alarm!~
            • We can put the people suffering the ill consequences of social media in the hundreds of millions. About half the users. So yes, sound the alarm.
              • Okay...? Why should we sue Epic Games because people are addicted to social media? Try to stay on topic at least. I can't sue Folger's cause I drink coffee everyday.

                • 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!

        • 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=

      • I'm guessing you've never tried "drawing a line in the sand" with teenagers then.
      • 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?

        • 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

          • 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.

            • 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

    • Parents too consumed with their own online addictions to be goalkeepers of the remotes and devices.

    • 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

      • 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)

      by ljw1004 ( 764174 )

      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

  • This has got to be the highest possible compliment that could be paid to the marketing team and devs.

  • 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

    • In some ways Apple and the other stores are responsible. In order to use the benefits of family linked accounts (app sharing etc) you are forced to use a linked credit card (and its smart enough to reject prepaid cards and debit cards now). Now I have to use screentime or familylink to block purchases. This is fine for me, but the parental permission for in app purchases takes so long it times out resulting in a charge and no actual product. In other words it steals your money and doesnt give you the in-ap

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by PPH ( 736903 )

        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.

        • 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)

          by Entrope ( 68843 )

          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)

          by e3m4n ( 947977 )
          Even my wife, should she want to buy a song, has to have it charge a CC, then transfer money over to make a CC payment. She can't even link her personal debit card. The entire idea is to link it to a credit card for the expressed purpose of spending money you dont have. I typically keep a 0 balance on my CC, or use it when we book cruises so we get the points, but maintain a careful charge/pay balance so as to avoid paying a lot of interest. A long time ago, when my daughter was just getting her own phone,

      • 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)

          by e3m4n ( 947977 )
          every time I try to change my payment method it errors saying its not an actual credit card. Cant use debit and cant use pre-paid visa. Apple cards are the only work-around but it doesnt actually keep your CC from being charged, it just removes that balance first. If you kid decides to run up $300 on game-of-war only using restrictions within ScreenTime and FamilyLink can prevent this. No middle ground, its either never or always. The whole 'permissions' part times out and never issues the in-game purchase

    • 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)

    by Katatsumuri ( 1137173 ) on Friday December 09, 2022 @09:46AM (#63116328)
    I donâ(TM)t know about Fortnight, but some games, like War Dragons, are indeed designed in every aspect to suck you in and consume your whole life. Rewards hung just out of reach that you can win with extra time/logins, âoeclaimingâ required for everything, expiration of opportunities, things to react to that require notifications, and the whole social engineering side designed for players to push each other further and feel like you let your team down if you donâ(TM)t do your part. It starts as entertainment, and turns into a job. So happy I could quit it. I would totally support putting legislative limits on such game design choices.
    • What are REALLY evil are the "free" games that 20 minutes into the game you realize you have to buy add-ons with real money in order to actually win. All of the games advertised on Microsoft Solitaire are designed that way. "Addictive" kind of denotes a lack of willpower on the behalf of the player. 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". Yes, I still play Minecraft when I'm very depressed and/or

      • 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.

        • 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)

    by algaeman ( 600564 ) on Friday December 09, 2022 @10:10AM (#63116410)
    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.

    • 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.

    • If Fortnite is criminally responsible, then so are Disney, Mattel, Coke, Nike, Amazon, etc, etc.

      Agreed. Let's do them too. Next, concurrently, whatever.

    • 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

  • 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

    • 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)

        by dirk ( 87083 )

        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?

      • Great. Then the code you get tomunlo k your item has tangible value.

  • The Fortnite game designers actually succeeded in developing an addictive game? They are going to be in really high demand now... they're going to be RICH! Hey, can somebody please sue me for my firmware being addictive?

    • 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.

    • Game developers didn't do anything. Behavoural psychologists (which Epic employs) did. All game developers did was follow instructions.

  • That can't do their damn job.

    • 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.

  • If all those parents had to pay for their sh*tty parenting with fines or jail time, lol
  • The alcohol companies must be nervous.

  • It's just a rewards program. (Score:3)

    by MarkX ( 716 ) on Friday December 09, 2022 @12:19PM (#63116786) Homepage
    Long time since I've posted.

    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)

    by LeeLynx ( 6219816 ) on Friday December 09, 2022 @01:10PM (#63116964)
    There is way too much argument going on here about parental guidance being a simple solution to the problem. It obviously isn't. Balancing all the responsibilities of raising a child is tremendously challenging. It's definitely not easy, but that doesn't mean it isn't your responsibility, and it definitely isn't a justification for suing the people that made the thing you don't like your kids using.

  • ...just wait until some of those sue-happy people discover Bun Bo Hue.

  • It's the parents job to make sure the kid doesn't play the game that often. They just want to put the blame on somebody else.

  • 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.

  • Instead of punishing success, we should be encouraging dev studios to make exciting, interesting games.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Don't try to outweird me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you free with my breakfast cereal." - Zaphod Beeblebrox in "Hithiker's Guide to the Galaxy"

Close