Support NeoGAF

[Deactivision]

Even if OP got his son a vita or 3ds, they are only going to gather dust as he will prefer his f2p games

This is the case for the most part, he's had a 3DS for a year or two already... Christmas was Fantasy Life and Pokemon and neither has been played for more than a few hours. He was pretty hooked on Fantasy Life for a few days but he forgot to save and his mom popped the cart out so he lost a bunch of progress and hasn't returned to it since.

He loves watching me play Metroid Prime right now, and has had a lot of fun in the past with Smash Bros, Mario Kart, even The Wonderful 101, for crying out loud. He loves Kirby and recently finished Kirby Triple Deluxe. But he is sometimes an anxious kid, and doesn't handle stress all that well, so I think the worry free gameplay of the mobile stuff is really appealing to him.

 

[spekkeh]

I think it's a little ridiculous to argue some games are better for you to play than others.

Erm why? This is demonstrably true.

 

[JesseZao]

I like how the first thought is to encourage the child to play "better" games. I would encourage creative outlets like drawing, building, etc. instead of game playing if I'm encouraging anything.

 

[John Rabbit]

as some people have touched on in this thread, i'd be more concerned about the aggressive reward system these games use to keep people playing. namely the pressure to spend real-world money for virtual goods and equating those transactions into some kind of personal growth and/or success. buying virtual goods with real money is not an inherently bad thing, provided you have the right context (that it's a completely goofy thing to do that satisfies a momentary craving for "stuff"), but i would not trust a 9-year-old, however smart or savvy, to understand the larger implications of that behavior.

the fact that he's contending with what sounds like a tremendous amount of peer pressure and desire to fit in with his classmates and friends is difficult as well. obviously you don't want to keep your kid from having fun with friends and participating in a shared experience, but at some point a line will be crossed.

i think you should limit his time with the games and to an extent maybe even engage him a little bit in why he likes them and what he's doing in them. your opinion of the games from a personal taste point of view is completely irrelevant. but if you take at least a passing interest in them, you might understand why he plays them so much and worse-case scenario he'll stop playing because his lame Dad talks about them too.

 

[Ingueferroque]

This is stupid. If his dad is worried about him developing an "addiction" to his favorite games buying him more games just because it will give him some vicarious satisfaction that his son is playing "real games" is so dumb and misguided. If you are worried he's playing too many video games then regulate the amount of time he can play and push him towards spending time doing other alternative activities, like playing sports, going outdoors or reading.

You don't play Mario because you got a message whilst your 3DS was idle telling you to PLAY NOW for INCREASED GEMS! And if you don't log in at least 4 times a day you won't get into the second world!

There is a big fucking difference.

 

[Muskieratboi]

get this kid hooked on PuzzDra, then the second it comes out, hide the phone and put in it's place his 3DS with PuzzDra Z.

Problem solved!

 

[Coffee Dog]

Duh it's not like feedback loops are built into every video game. It's only freemium games that are built that way.

My advice? Let him do what he wants. Don't be that dad that imposes his tastes on his children. Plus freemium games are videogames too, there isn't a difference.

Free to play games are the only ones that hobble satisfying progression in order to maximize revenue.

You want to tell me the feedback loop for Super Mario 3 or ALTTP, and do you want to tell me why those are harmful to game design in the same way F2P monetisation is?

 

[Mentok]

As an elementary teacher I've seen addiction from both f2p and traditional games. I don't think these freemium games are "worse" than say Minecraft or CoD. For example, I've had conversations with parents because their child goes home and plays Minecraft until 2am, then comes to school tired and a few grade levels behind in certain subjects. But, I've also had to confiscate iPhones from kids playing Clash of Clans in class. The addictive nature of video games in general can get out of hand if not handled properly. So I say as long as your son is having fun, and that the games he's playing are not interfering with important development (chores, school, playing outside, etc) then you have nothing to worry about.

p.s. And as others have said, keep it free as these games can blow up your CC.

 

[Deactivision]

I hope in typing this out you realize how unhealthy your attitude sounds.

This has been expressed a few times; I don't think it's totally fair. I'm trying to be open minded -- that's why I'm here. I think there are, at least at first glance, some genuine concerns as a parent about these types of games and the way they are designed. Others seem to agree.

It's cool though, I understand the knee jerk response and it's hard to convey exactly how I've handled the situation. I really am just looking for more info about these games from experienced gamers who are more familiar with them than I am, so I can see if it would be reasonable or not to impose limits on them.

 

[stuminus3]

Exactly, NES games were addictive because they were good or people liked the stories. Freemium crap is addictive because they are designed specifically to be addictive because the game has a way to spend real money to progress easier. Its apples and oranges.

It doesn't matter why they were addicitive, all that matters is that they were. They always have been. Feedback loops are the foundation of videogames. It can be because they're filling a bar. Or unlocking some cool new weapons. Or getting the gold medal in a race. Or seeing the next part of the story. Or getting the top score on the leaderboard. It's all the same to kids.

So long as the OP isn't pulling out his credit card every time his kid needs another 50 gems or some crap - and that would really be a whole other issue - then it really doesn't matter.

I think you should limit his time with the games and to an extent maybe even engage him a little bit in why he likes them and what he's doing in them.

I couldn't agree more. You are exactly correct here. But a parent should really be doing the same thing regardless of what it is. Even if it's "Daddy approved Mega Man 2", people should still be engaging with their kids and be setting appropriate limits.

 

[Fisty]

as some people have touched on in this thread, i'd be more concerned about the aggressive reward system these games use to keep people playing. namely the pressure to spend real-world money for virtual goods and equating those transactions into some kind of personal growth and/or success. buying virtual goods with real money is not an inherently bad thing, provided you have the right context (that it's a completely goofy thing to do that satisfies a momentary craving for "stuff"), but i would not trust a 9-year-old, however smart or savvy, to understand the larger implications of that behavior.

the fact that he's contending with what sounds like a tremendous amount of peer pressure and desire to fit in with his classmates and friends is difficult as well. obviously you don't want to keep your kid from having fun with friends and participating in a shared experience, but at some point a line will be crossed.

i think you should limit his time with the games and to an extent maybe even engage him a little bit in why he likes them and what he's doing in them. your opinion of the games from a personal taste point of view is completely irrelevant. but if you take at least a passing interest in them, you might understand why he plays them so much and worse-case scenario he'll stop playing because his lame Dad talks about them too.

Read this, OP

 

[EatMyFace]

I've been there before. Eventually he'll get bored of all the clones and hopefully stick to only 1 or 2.
That's his decision though, not yours. It's his time, he should decide what to do with it. (As long as he does his homework first!)

 

[Impeccable]

You want to tell me the feedback loop for Super Mario 3 or ALTTP, and do you want to tell me why those are harmful to game design in the same way F2P monetisation is?

Look at the Ubisoft formula or CoD MP with your tv blowing up with feedback as an example rather than games from your childhood.

 

[justjustin]

Erm why? This is demonstrably true.

I don't really see how. If you're talking about cognitive or motor skill improvement I agree there is a difference between games, but any real-life activity will have vastly more profound effects. Videogames are art. It's a way to punch of out reality for a bit, like when you watch a movie or read a book.

 

[Ingueferroque]

Look at the Ubisoft formula or CoD MP with your tv blowing up with feedback as an example rather than games from your childhood.

This is still NOT the same. Please, have you played the games the OP is talking about?

Call of Duty does not email you, or post on your facebook wall, or send you an OS-wide message when you are not playing, giving you a specific time limit to perform some action for some arbitrary reward.

 

[GiantEnemyCrab]

They're crack. They're designed to make you addicted, spacing out the dopamine release further and further in order to introduce racketeering schemes.

There's no hope with dope. Don't let your kids do F2P. I'm serious. Forbid it. It's not healthy because it creates an addicted mindset.

I disagree; I think it exploits addictive tendencies that are already present. Unfortunately, these tendencies exist in most people, to varying degrees.

It's good and right to give your child freedom, including the freedom to make mistakes. That's how the child learns. But if your child can't recognize his mistake, he can't learn from it. And as this thread proves, people have profound difficulty in recognizing when they've been sucked into a scheme designed to psychologically exploit them. That's precisely why people spend all day in casinos, lose thousands of dollars to Nigerian scammers, or obsessively play F2P and MMO games.

If you take these games away from your kid, it might end up being one of those decisions he just can't understand. Even most adults have trouble distinguishing between real, harmless fun and the psychological responses these games are designed to elicit. You just have to accept that. You're not your child's friend, you're responsible for his well-being.

Edit:

I just want to add that I myself have been sucked into these kinds of games before. It took me a long time (and viewing some informative talks on game design) to begin to recognize predatory game design practices. I couldn't initially distinguish between the conditioned, "Skinner box" responses these games elicit, and genuine satisfaction.

In OP's case, it sounds like his kid's desire to play these games is growing, and he wants to spend increasing amounts of time playing them. To me, that is an early warning sign that he may be susceptible to the addiction these games prey upon. He should probably stay far away from these games, though it may take him a long time to understand why.

 

[Deactivision]

I like how the first thought is to encourage the child to play "better" games. I would encourage creative outlets like drawing, building, etc. instead of game playing if I'm encouraging anything.

I encourage these things all the time. We draw together, read, build Lego and Mindstorms projects, etc. But video games are his thing; he loves them. He gets an hour per day at my place to indulge in them, a bit more on weekends, and I limit my playing time the same way to try to provide a good example -- even though sometimes I'd love to play more.

 

[Ingueferroque]

I encourage these things all the time. We draw together, read, build Lego and Mindstorms projects, etc. But video games are his thing; he loves them. He gets an hour per day at my place to indulge in them, a bit more on weekends, and I limit my playing time the same way to try to provide a good example -- even though sometimes I'd love to play more.

The thing is though, these F2P games don't work if you just play them for an hour. They are like a job. You take care of it throughout the day/week, or suffer the consequences.

It is like Tamagotchi, but not harmless or cute.

 

[Impeccable]

This is still NOT the same. Please, have you played the games the OP is talking about?

Fundamentally it is.

Played CoC, Tiny Tower, Tiny Tower Vegas, Monster Strike, Puzzle and Dragons, Boom Beach(briefly) and currently enjoying Sim City.

Most likely a shit load more too. You know what? I enjoy the shit out of the, for a couple months and when the timer get too long or I find myself bored...
shockingly, I move on to something else. Know what else? I have never spent a single cent on any of them.

Laughed out loud at your "suffer the conquences" no, I just didn't optimally move forward. But I still progressed. Amazing.

 

[Coffee Dog]

Look at the Ubisoft formula or CoD MP with your tv blowing up with feedback as an example rather than games from your childhood.

but...those are shit games who are a lot less fun than they could be do to their inherent money focused design.

that's my point. they don't even need to be games from my childhood. Hotline miami 2 is going to release without monetization impacting it's design. I'm gonna buy that.

As an industry, we moved on from requiring every game be based around get rich quick schemes when we left the arcades. No reason to go back now.

 

[TimorousPanda]

Yeah, don't force your game taste on him. He may come around one day.

 

[stuminus3]

I really am just looking for more info about these games from experienced gamers who are more familiar with them than I am, so I can see if it would be reasonable or not to impose limits on them.

I'm probably about as experienced as it gets around here (I have been a gamer for nearly four decades, have an experienced older kid that's too old to ever have experienced today's F2P style games, and younger kids who are into the exact things you're talking about) and you don't seem too interested in what I have to say. No offence, but I find that a little fishy.

 

[Deactivision]

I'm probably about as experienced as it gets around here (I have been a gamer for nearly four decades, have an experienced older kid that's too old to ever have experienced today's F2P style games, and younger kids who are into the exact things you're talking about) and you don't seem too interested in what I have to say. No offence, but I find that a little fishy.

I'm genuinely interested in all the replies here, sorry if it doesn't come across that way. I should have realized it would be tough to participate properly in this thread while at work; it's why I usually only browse GAF and try not to get involved in many conversations.

 

[spekkeh]

I don't really see how. If you're talking about cognitive or motor skill improvement I agree there is a difference between games,

That's what I meant.

but any real-life activity will have vastly more profound effects. Videogames are art. It's a way to punch of out reality for a bit, like when you watch a movie or read a book.

What do you mean? How are games not real-life activities? Games revolve around learning things. Playing is fundamentally a mind (re)structuring event for children. There's proof serious games are more effective than traditional instruction. Sure it's not like playing GTA makes them go out and run over hookers, but solving a complex problem is better for you than doing nothing.

 

[stuminus3]

I'm genuinely interested in all the replies here, sorry if it doesn't come across that way. I should have realized it would be tough to participate properly in this thread while at work; it's why I usually only browse GAF and try not to get involved in many conversations.

Gotcha, no worries. I know what you mean. :-]

 

[Iksenpets]

It sounds like they're big among his friends, so they're probably a pretty important part of socializing for him right now. Just don't let him pay any money towards them and his friends will probably move on to better hobbies soon enough.

 

[Htown]

You only needed one quarter if you were good.

and you don't need to buy anything in F2P games if you're patient.

 

[SmokedMeat]

And then buy a 3ds with wholesome real games and your child will be saved. Problem solved.

Then he can buy all the smart phone games Nintendo wants to bring to 3DS.

 

[justjustin]

This is still NOT the same. Please, have you played the games the OP is talking about?

Call of Duty does not email you, or post on your facebook wall, or send you an OS-wide message when you are not playing, giving you a specific time limit to perform some action for some arbitrary reward.

We get it's not the same. A lot of mobile games rely on outside systems to suck you in unlike great games immersing you in awesome simulated worlds. You could say mobile games bully you into playing them, while great games invite you. But which is more addictive? By nature, neither of them. It depends on how receptive the person is to certain qualities of a game. Mobile games are not automatically more dangerous.

 

[ThatStupidLion]

they are made to be addicting...it's like gambling for children.

i'd say limit the freemiums, or else once they get a CC their life/wallet is going downhill.

 

[spekkeh]

I disagree; I think it exploits addictive tendencies that are already present. Unfortunately, these tendencies exist in most people, to varying degrees.

It's good and right to give your child freedom, including the freedom to make mistakes. That's how the child learns. But if your child can't recognize his mistake, he can't learn from it. And as this thread proves, people have profound difficulty in recognizing when they've been sucked into a scheme designed to psychologically exploit them. That's precisely why people spend all day in casinos, lose thousands of dollars to Nigerian scammers, or obsessively play F2P and MMO games.

If you take these games away from your kid, it might end up being one of those decisions he just can't understand. Even most adults have trouble distinguishing between real, harmless fun and the psychological responses these games are designed to elicit. You just have to accept that. You're not your child's friend, you're responsible for his well-being.

Edit:

I just want to add that I myself have been sucked into these kinds of games before. It took me a long time (and viewing some informative talks on game design) to begin to recognize predatory game design practices. I couldn't initially distinguish between the conditioned, "Skinner box" responses these games elicit, and genuine satisfaction.

In OP's case, it sounds like his kid's desire to play these games is growing, and he wants to spend increasing amounts of time playing them. To me, that is an early warning sign that he may be susceptible to the addiction these games prey upon. He should probably stay far away from these games, though it may take him a long time to understand why.

Yeah I worded it harshly, that was in order to get my point across that you shouldn't look too lightly on what some of these games do (at the same time 'they are just games' of course). I fully agree that outright saying 'don't do drugs' works counter to what you want to accomplish; countries that have legalized softdrugs show much lower cannabis use than the US for instance. But at least be aware of the things some of these games try to do and how to communicate this to your kid.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

I sort of.... hate these games OP.

However, I agreed to play clash of clans as a friend was well into it.

I don't hate it at all. I sort of hate that I like it. I will never pay a red cent for it though, as it's essentially just.... paying to skip a part of the game. Don't really get it. for me the grind is the game so I play it and slowly upgrade and get more awesome. I sort of view people that pay for it as vaguely stupid. which is ironic, because I used to view people that played these sorts of games as vaguely stupid as well.

I guess they are alright. but they are scammy most of the time. Clash of clans actually seems to have a good balance though. I've never felt the need once to pay anything or it. Some of the people in my clan though.... hundreds of euros.

 

[Ingueferroque]

I think the trick is that, actually, these are not 'games'. (The worst examples)

 

[DidntKnowJack]

Just imagine yourself, as a kid, playing on the NES and your father in the other room wringing his hands wondering if he should step in and introduce you to the more traditional but clearly superior 'stick and a hoop' game.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

 

[Mac the KNife]

If it's not costing you money and he's playing with his friends, I see no problems here.

 

[justjustin]

That's what I meant.

What do you mean? How are games not real-life activities? Games revolve around learning things. Playing is fundamentally a mind (re)structuring event for children. There's proof serious games are more effective than traditional instruction. Sure it's not like playing GTA makes them go out and run over hookers, but solving a complex problem is better for you than doing nothing.

I mean you don't need to play videogames to learn how to solve complex problems or train fast reflexes. It's a nice side benefit, but I don't think people play a videogame to exercise their brain and get physical activity. I really think people primarily treat them like art, and are attracted to videogames for the same reason. They're fascinating alternate worlds you can pretend to do stuff in. If a person wants to educate themselves, learn a skill or be more physically active there are better alternatives.

 

[jailbird20022]

should've had him playing crash bandicoot and jak and daxter.

hand-me-down consoles are great for kids.

 

[justjustin]

Just imagine yourself, as a kid, playing on the NES and your father in the other room wringing his hands wondering if he should step in and introduce you to the more traditional but clearly superior 'stick and a hoop' game.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Except in this case it's the kid playing mind-numbing stick and hoop, and the father wanting to introduce his son to the most advanced artform ever created. But I do get what you mean.

 

[Rushersauce]

"if he enjoys it and if he is having fun, let him be" is one of the stupidest arguments I've ever witnessed. Would you say that kind of thing a if he was doing drugs? The thing is an addiction, and addictions are a problem. I was addicted to normal video games and that was a bad time of my life. imagine now, these games are made to be addictive due to its easy nature and accessibility.

 

[Blargonaut]

One must taste the darkness if they are ever to combat it.

 

[Nipo]

I'm going to go against the popular opinion and say it is ok to limit his freemium gaming time. Freemiuum games are the reality tv of the gaming world. They are easy to get hooked on, offer no artistic value, and there are better examples of any redeeming quality.

Then again I'd also limit my kids ability to watch only one type fo tv show or read only one type of book.

 

[Devil]

Well, no problem as long as it is some decent shovelware!

Spoiler

sorry..

 

[Chezzymann]

Let him play what he wants. If he is having fun, isn't that all the matters?

First post, etc.

 

[GiantEnemyCrab]

A key thing to keep in mind is it's extremely difficult for an addicted person to recognize the addiction and see its harmful effects. This is especially true if the harm is objectively small. For example, OP's kid (presumably) hasn't spent any money on F2P games, so many will argue there has been no harm.

I would argue feeding an addiction is inherently harmful.

It's possible to play F2P games without having an addiction, just like it's possible to smoke cigarettes, or drink alcohol, or do anything else without developing an addiction. But many people (I suspect the majority of people, but I don't have data to back this up) have compulsive tendencies to some degree, and these people are at risk for developing an addiction. "Game" developers employ psychologists to help them prey on these people.

I realize this sounds very doom-and-gloom for a discussion about "games", but this stuff really can mess people up.

At the same time, I wouldn't blindly accuse someone of having an addiction. Not everyone who plays F2P games is addicted. I wouldn't ban my kid outright from playing these games, but I would frankly discuss the dangers with him and keep an eye out for signs of trouble.

 

[mrklaw]

Free to play games are the only ones that hobble satisfying progression in order to maximize revenue.

You want to tell me the feedback loop for Super Mario 3 or ALTTP, and do you want to tell me why those are harmful to game design in the same way F2P monetisation is?

And the Op has already said he doesn't allow any purchases so that is nipped in the bud.

My son plays a lot of Clash of Clans and seems to enjoy himself without ever buying anything premium (well I think he may have bought one thing but that's all, because I have to authorise all purchases)

 

[aygomyownroad]

Get an Xbox 360 and show him command and conquer red alert 3

 

[DeaviL]

 

[Bytes]

Well, at least his taste in games is easy on your wallet (as long as you have IAP on lockdown).

 

[Surface of Me]

You folks are passing around the wrong South Park image: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CbWr0zO7Ac


Yes, all games have game loops to entice you to keep playing. No, not all games make you pay more money to keep you in the game loop. No, not all games post to your Facebook or send you a phone notification to keep playing to trigger a want. No, pulling off an intricate gameplay mechanic to release dopamine is not the same as having flashing lights and whimsical sounds thrown at you constantly like a god damned slot machine to release dopamine. To act as if all games are made the same and some aren't made to be literal addiction machines is disingenuous.

 

[adj_noun]

Buy an actual Skinner box. Cut out the middle man.