I posted to an IGDA discussion group something about video game addiction, its relationship to drug addiction and the use of the term “addictive” in the game industry. In the course of this I rabbited on a bit about drug law and treatment. I think it’s worth sharing, as the discussion led me to more nuanced opinions and a lot of new things to think about. (continued »)
This article at ZDnet upholds what I have asserted before: too many things are being sloppily called “addictions”. Having experimented with cigarettes, being a slave to daily caffeine, and remaining in a wary waltz with my family nemesis alcohol, I know the difference between something which is addictive and something which is so pleasurable that maybe it absorbs more time than it should. There are many things I like a great deal, and which I need to check myself from doing so much of that they take time away from things I enjoy less but know I *should* do. But compelling, tempting enjoyability does not make those things addictive. To call them that is an insult to addicts and a blurring of a very important medical term.
Besides, if video game addiciton gets classified as a bona fide addiction syndrome and therefore gets insurance coverage, Blizzard may as well open up an HMO, haul it in from both ends, and eventually buy America. To which I would respond: Nerf SUVs.
© 2012 Digital Cream
