The science behind game addiction
Are games addictive? That's the
question posed over at Gamasutra, and Neils Clark has gone into some detail to explain the science behind addiction and its relevance to gaming. Unfortunately, the answer
isn't as clear-cut as a simple "yes" or "no".Addiction itself is a complicated area of psychology and neuroscience, and it's often implicated with gaming by those who fail to understand either concept. What's increasingly clear from this article is that there may be flaws in research relating to game addiction--from conceptual confusion to extended assumptions, as well as the tendency to embrace concepts before they are fully investigated. Clark points out that "research has simply suggested that at most, people are becoming addicted to games, not that games themselves are actually responsible for addicting people."
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Jay @ Mar 1st 2006 9:09PM
I think they were additive when I was a kid, maybe it was that mentality or something. I remember the first day back after christmas in about 1994/5 something like that. I just got a GB with Donkey Kong Land and I remember how long and boring that day at school was as I wanted to play that game so much.
I suppose if I buy a game in town then the bus ride home is hell. Just looking at the game, building my will power by not opening the plastic seal. Car rides are usually a lot more comfortable.
But! Smash Bros Melee. Just got my Gamecube. Never heard of Smash Bros before. I couldn't get back to sleep at 6am so I jumped on gamefaqs reading about Cube games. There was this fighting game, all Nitendo's biggest stars with 10/10 ratings all around. I walked to town at 7am, got there at 8. shops didn't open till 9. I had to SIT outside Game for an hour before it opened. But my god. I never played a game for so long. I even missed the commenwealth games torch-running people as they ran through my village as I just unlocked Luigi. It was awesome. Nothing has surpassed that yet, nothing had me as addicted.
bd @ Mar 1st 2006 9:35PM
"Unfortunately, the answer isn't as clear-cut as a simple "yes" or "no"."
Well, if ANY analysis joystiq posts had a simple answer, then it would be pointless in the first place. This phrase sounds almost like "I'm entering in" or "I'm exiting out".
Jaunty @ Mar 1st 2006 9:47PM
Simple Answer, yes games can be addicting, in fact. EVERYTHING can be addicting, it doesnt need some outside source to become addicting. Chewing your nails can be addictive. Cracking your nuckles can be addictive. Etc.
Silent Bob @ Mar 1st 2006 10:07PM
I honestly don't think that games can be considered addiction. People like to play them a lot, and therefore spend a lot of time playing them. God knows i spent a lot of time playing WoW for 5 months. But i think that addiction is just a term society applies to games because they are viewed as unhealthy. No one says that someone has a football addiction just because they play it a lot. I think thats how it is for games. Like football, people play it a lot if they like it. It's just that one is considered healthy and the other is not, and therefore one is assigned the term addiction.
Neuroscience Carl @ Mar 1st 2006 11:02PM
As a graduate student studying neuropharmacology I would like to elaborate on the two definitions of addiction.
From a psychology view addiction is:|
Obsesive behaviors and thought patterns that do not allow the 'addict' to live a normal life without thinking of the stimulus (game, drug, alcohol etc) when they are doing something else.
From a neuroscience view addiction is:
The innability for the a body (or physiological system) to reach it's default state when in the absense of a desired stimulus.
The "addiction" to games that most people usually exhibit are neither of these. Rather, it is a lack of interest in moving away from the stimulus rather than the uncontrollable urge to begin the game.
This may indeed broaden the definition of addiction, but it does not fit the historical profile.
What games do take advantage of is the natural goal/reward pathway (actually a collection of pathways) that is/are involved in things like eating/sex and drug use - all things that are traditional targets of addiction.
Brian @ Mar 1st 2006 11:08PM
I think calling games "addictive" is like calling a playground "addictive". Any of you who have children, or else remember when you were a child, remember back when you would go to a playground, or such, and your parents would be like, "It's time to gooooo..."
Of course, you liked the playground, so in that nasally voice, "NooOOOOoooo!!!"
And then your parents had to pry you off the slide.
I think videogames are addictive like playgrounds. They're addicting because they're -fun-. The difference between games and playgrounds, is that you can't go to playgrounds all the time, and when you do, you have to leave sometime. Games are all around you, all the time. It's like a child's fantasy.
The problem is that people categorize this "addiction" in the same category as being addicted to alcohol. It's not an addiction in the modern sense of the word, but the fact that humans, ALL humans, love to do what is fun, and if they can, they will continue to do what is fun as long as they possibly can. Who doesn't want to have fun all the time? Exactly. That's the kind of addiction videogames are, and that is not a -real- addiction -- it's simply a natural pattern in our behaviour that we like fun.
m3mnoch @ Mar 2nd 2006 1:37AM
personally, from a game design perspective, i think game designers try like ninjas on fire to make games addictive.
that's the essence of beautiful gameplay. to stagger the acts and scenes of a game. to stagger your goals. it's very much a mathematical process.
the small goals are indeed enough to keep the player interested enough to make the big goals. big goals give the player enough power or information that triggers that dopamine loving part of our brains into wanting more.
are they addictive? not in and of themselves. do they play on the weaknesses of addictive people? absolutely.
is that wrong? of course not.
that's like saying that it's wrong to make food with peanuts as an ingredient because some people somewhere are allergic to nuts. i mean, lord knows we need to tiptoe around disabilities. (balancing that sympathy with empowerment) but is it wrong not to?
it's not. YOU'RE NOT THE TARGET AUDIENCE, MR. ADDICTIVE. do you know why? because you are only 1% of 1% of the target market. we're talking mass appeal, mainstream games and entertainment here. game makers don't survive on your $15 a month.
in fact, you are actually a DRAIN on their resources. they'd much rather collect money from someone who doesn't soak up all their bandwidth.
now, specifically seeking out addictive personalities and pushing evercrack on them? yeah, that's just mean. like sitting outside a methadone clinic with an eightball, pointing and laughing. but, who has that kind of time? not anyone trying to make money.
no. addictive personalities should be treated like every other 'allergy.' you don't feed someone who is allergic to peanuts peanut butter do you? it's about personal responsibility. if you know you're alergic to peanuts. your family knows you're allergic to peanuts. your friends know your allergic....
you eat a fistfull of peanuts and die? that's your own goddamn fault.
as you could assume, i also have very little sympathy for those stupifying people who don't think mcdonalds coffee is hot, spill it on themselves, then sue mcdonalds looking for a payday. stop trying to blame society for your own stupid negligence.
'mcdonalds made me fat.' no. god made you stupid. that's what you should be pissed about.
if you know you have a problem, take care of it. if your friends and family think you have a problem, you probably do -- so take care of it.
for the other 99.9% of us? just let us enjoy our damn media, would you?
grrrr....
m3mnoch.
Civil War chess sets @ Mar 2nd 2006 5:02AM
I remember the big debate over Everquest or 'Ever Crack' some time ago. There were support groups for players' families, couples being split up over the game, and of course there was the big suicide case with Shawn Wooley.
Hamsterbaffle @ Mar 2nd 2006 11:03AM
Duh.
Video Games are addicitve for *EXACTLY* the same reason gambling is:
1) I play, hoping to win.
2) I loose.
3) I play again.
4) I loose.
4) I play again.
5) I win.
6) Yeah!
7) Hmmm . . . . I really like this feeling.
8) I play again.
9) I loos--wait, no, I won again!
10) Hmmmm . . . I wonder how often I can afford to do this and not ruin my life.
11) Wow, a lot.
12) Besides, "ruin" is such a subjective term . . .
--
--
JM @ Mar 2nd 2006 2:31PM
Games aren't an addiction. Have you ever sucked anybody's d*ck for 10 more minutes on WoW? Yeah, I didn't think so. Because I *have* done that for crack.
AD @ Mar 2nd 2006 4:32PM
Honestly JM, from what I've seen of WOW addicts, if they needed to stoop that low to be able to play, they would. For example, if their ISP cut off their internet and that it what they had to do to get it back to play their precious game, they would.
Neils Clark @ Mar 20th 2006 8:53AM
First off, Neuroscience Carl's comment that games may be addictive in that they promote a "lack of interest in moving away from the stimulus" is extremely insightful. While it has been shown that gamers are, in point of fact, drawn to games, the inability to separate oneself from the gaming experience has a lot to do with the format of (especially MMO) games. In other words, games arent like television, with its commercials, or a book, with its chapters. There's not always a breaking point in games. This may exacerbate the goal-related dopamine release, and the potential for subsequent addiction.
Secondly: "you eat a fistfull of peanuts and die? that's your own goddamn fault." I would rather give somebody the Heimlich then watch them die (k thx). Games may not be directly responsible for addiction, yet there is one point from my article that I would like to highlight as it has been largely glossed over: What we can do, as game creators, is understand that a problem exists, and try to understand research advances as they occur.
A lot of people are having problems controlling their play. The game industry should be genuinely concerned that their best customers might be suffering at the hands of something that is supposed to be fun, if for no other reason than it truly threatens their long term profits. If the word addiction is indeed appropriate, then telling somebody to simply "take care of it" likely hurts more than it helps, especially considering the social stygmatization already associated with gaming. Game addiction is much more complicated than anyone is giving it credit for.