I think 2-3 hours a day is fine, don't see a problem there.

I find most people who are addicted to gaming are because they try to prove that they're better than all of their friends, so they spend countless hours trying to succeed. It's what I've come to realise

I play my Xbox loads, but I don't consider myself addicted. Most people are not addicted to games they just find it better than sitting around doing nothing. Sure you could go out, but where I live there is nothing decent to do within a 20 odd mile radius that I haven't done a thousand times before and if I went round a friends I'd just be playing games there so there isn't many other options for entertainment.

I don't think games affect my grades at college, I'm doing fine despite NEVER revising. I wouldn't revise even if I didn't play games to be honest xD

If people don't spend their spare time on games, they spend it complaining that they are bored on Facebook. Its an easy choice for me.

Mines the same as Ash but there isnt even a shop close to my house now :'(. I seem to have to complete a game first day (sad i know) But Awesome!!!!. Even games like Dragon age i will stay up without sleep just to complete it. Damn my life is full :P

I sit and stare at Morties as he wipes the sweat off of his cadaverous looking skin. The smell is pungent. The tea is fine.

You're constantly asleep Morties!

¬¬ says the person who comes on xbox to appear away.

I was watching stuff on Sky xD

An interesting story has come to light regarding the Panarama "investigation" from Trent who appeared in it:

Addicted to Hype? An insiders angle on the Panorama incident…

As many of you will know, either from watching it or hearing about it in the ginormous internet backlash, last Monday’s episode of Panorama was of great interest to the gaming community. Posing the question ‘Addicted To Games?’, it involved equal parts scaremongering, misinformation and tactical use of facts. Practically everyone in the gaming community and many more people outside of it have slammed the show for being one-sided and providing very little hard evidence or support for its proposed theory. Whether any of that is true or right is not for me to say and is additionally not the point of this article.

No, the true point of this here piece of writing is to explain my involvement in the whole thing, give you guys a unique perspective on it and address a few of the issues that I feel the programme inflames, misses the point of, or misunderstands. So I’ll start by explaining how I’m tied to all this and go on from there.

Party to the thing

Here it is. Joe Staley is one of my closest friends and featured in a documentary made by some of his former uni classmates about gaming addiction. This piece was then seen by the creator of Addicted to Games? (let’s call it ATG for ease of writing) and is, ironically, in my opinion a much more balanced view on the subject. See for yourself here. Anyway, I get a call from Joe asking if Panorama can use my house to film at. Joe’s dad is not a fan of gaming and especially not Joe gaming so refused, rightly so, to have it shot at his house. Myself, being Joe’s friend and also relishing the opportunity as a fledgling media professional to get to see how a documentary is made, I felt that having them film at my house would be an interesting experience. So they came, they filmed, they asked lots of questions, made Joe play some Modern Warfare 2, made us both play Rock Band for a bit and then left. They were amicable guys, if a little pushy, but that was to be expected from media types with a tight time-scale. Little did I know how the whole thing would turn out.
During the filming they concentrated mainly on Joe as he was the main focus of the piece, but since I was his friend and had gaming sessions with him frequently during his ‘worst period’, they also asked me questions about him. One of these questions was included in the final edit, and I believe it was, in fact, the only thing that I said that was kept in. I believe this was because most of what I said did not support or even entertain their exaggerated view of games addiction and its causes.

I used much of my apparent camera time to explain the reasons behind developers making games that people don’t want to stop playing, resisting the idea that devs should have to take steps to prevent people becoming addicted and down-playing how bad Joe really was. Despite the fact that, for a time, I was concerned about his life I really never saw it as that much of a problem. I expressed concern to him that he should, you know, get off his arse and look for a job, like everyone else. I suggested he get on with media related stuff rather than sit playing Modern Warfare all day. As his friend, however, I didn’t see it as my responsibility or purpose to intervene and stop him gaming. He’s an adult, his own person and he can do what the hell he likes.

So, while it may seem to some that I was all for the cause that the BBC were creating, I was actually trying to inject some sanity into proceedings, all of which was cut. While I do not think I was misrepresented, my comments were used well within context, it was obvious to me that much of what I had said was tactically cut as it did not support the theme of the piece. It makes me wonder what else was cut in this was to maintain the mood and overall goal of ATG.

Before I begin to pick apart the themes of ATG that really got me going, I’d like to take this opportunity to clear a few things up. Firstly, Joe was thrown out of university because he was failing and he couldn’t afford to keep going. He did not drop out, as ATG explicitly tried to imply, because of playing games. He became disinterested and disenfranchised with his course and therefore had no drive to go. In his boredom, he began to play his Xbox more. So, his disinterest in university was a reason for his increase in gaming, not the other way around.

Also worthy of note is that, while much of the money he spent to get him into the ‘crippling debt’ ATG was so happy to impress was in fact spent on games, the actual debt was more a result of Joe not being very good with money. Sure, he bought a few more games than he should have considering his budget, but I know of numerous occasions where he was confident he could afford the expenditure but in fact couldn’t. So the debt was more a result of Joe’s bad budgeting skills than an addiction to gaming.

Addiction

Now that’s out-of-the-way, I want to tackle some of the issues in ATG and try to explain my reasoning behind why many of them are presented entirely in the wrong way in the programme. I would first like to say that I do acknowledge that some people play games way too much and it negatively impacts on their lives. This is a problem, maybe, but only for them and their immediate family. It’s a problem they should sort out for themselves and not something that needs national attention or government assistance or interference. Just thought I’d clear that up in case you all thought that I thought game addiction was a fabricated myth. Now, onto the real issues.
The first point I’m going to raise is the one of this whole ‘addiction’ word, or more specifically the use of it. As defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, addiction means ‘the condition of being addicted to something’, which then leads me to the word ‘addicted’ which is defined as:
“unable to stop taking harmful drugs, or using or doing something as a habit”
Notice that it includes the word ‘unable’. This insinuates that the person is literally unable to stop doing or taking whatever it is they’re doing or taking. Joe was perfectly able to stop gaming if presented with a more interesting alternative. He did not experience withdrawal symptoms after he returned home without a console, except for maybe a little boredom. He had spent much of his free time doing something he could no longer do, so it was to be expected that the vacuum created by the absence of that activity would take a little time to fill and before it is filled would create boredom.
A heroin addict however, experiences severe and sometimes life-threatening withdrawal symptoms when coming off the drug. The absence of the drug wrecks them, body and mind, for a varying period of time. In this case, an addiction must be something that creates withdrawal if the person addicted sheds that which they are addicted to. If gaming can truly be an addiction, the only withdrawal symptoms that could reasonably be garnered are things that are perceived to be positive; getting more exercise, socialising, working, improving relationships, reading, this list goes on. Therefore I do not believe that, by the Oxford definition, that gaming can be a true addiction to the point at which it can be seriously called an addiction. Although the second definition of the word presents a further spanner to be thrown in the works of this argument:
“Spending all your free time doing something because you are so interested in it”
This definition now allows us to include gaming under the umbrella term of addiction. This would completely null the entire last paragraph, except now we can bring many other activities into the mix. The definition uses the generalising term ‘something’ to describe the activities included. It also uses the phrase ‘free time’, denoting time that the person has where they can decide what to do. Taking this definition to heart, gaming can be classed as an addiction. So can reading… and exercising… and playing sports… and chatting… and shopping… and practically every popular activity in Britain today.

My dad spends almost all of his free time reading and listening to the radio. Does that mean he’s addicted to reading? I’d say so, but that’s not perceived by people as being a bad thing, in fact, reading is encouraged and respected by most. So now we have to bring perception, social perception, into it and that changes everything. Simply because one activity is perceived to be beneficial and another is perceived to be detrimental, whether those activities are addictive or not is affected and decided. Reading apparently can’t be addictive because if offers the benefits of relaxation, development of intelligence and reading skills, further understanding of how our beautiful language works and escapism into wonderful stories, but gaming can be addictive. Why?

Source: Addicted to Hype? An insiders angle on the Panorama incident…

Oh how the media manipulates things.

Well written there by Trent

It depends on how much time you spent in front of the PC; if you're playing browser games for 2-3 hours, and then trawling the net for 6, that's obviously way too much screen time! It also depends on how much of an influence gaming has on your social/school/family/work life.... I play a lot of browser games (World of Tanks, baby) but they come second to my family, but come before chores heheh