The only reason I posted this article on HN is because I needed a place to rant about it. Or at least about the title. The author seems to have valid credentials to write on this topic (based on his bio at the bottom), but the title chosen for this article (and I'll give the author the benefit of the doubt -- perhaps it was chosen by eyeball hungry editors of Wired) is wildly overstating the situation.
The author acknowledges the wide spectrum of opinions in the sociological literature about this controversial issue, but then dismisses the contrarians outright with little more than anecdotal data. He provides one -- ONE -- study (withOUT attribution, no less) to substantiate the title's claim, and then proceeds to contradict his own position by describing in detail a not-widely recognized but pernicious problem in the gaming community ("loot boxes").
A more accurate title would have been, "The costs of Video Game addiction may be even higher than we thought."
1 comment
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 13.6 ms ] threadThe author acknowledges the wide spectrum of opinions in the sociological literature about this controversial issue, but then dismisses the contrarians outright with little more than anecdotal data. He provides one -- ONE -- study (withOUT attribution, no less) to substantiate the title's claim, and then proceeds to contradict his own position by describing in detail a not-widely recognized but pernicious problem in the gaming community ("loot boxes").
A more accurate title would have been, "The costs of Video Game addiction may be even higher than we thought."