Academia/NYT: Folks Not Working Due to "Improved" Video Games

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/07/0...ally-good.html

Some might say nothing new here but the fact the MSM and mainstream academia are putting serious research into this means something... Surely the entire video game industry has noticed this from a business-perspective.

Yeah... no, I'm not going into details but that whole article is a big manipulation.

Without context the numbers are meaningless.

The hours quoted (163 for ages 31-55 and 203 for ages 21-30) equate to about 3-4 hours per week but doesn't explain where those hours were dropped - are people taking contracts with less hours per week, doing less overtime (paid or unpaid) or, in certain salaried positions, not putting in longer than average days as much? Do the numbers only include those in work or the unemployed as well? Is it due to less hours of work per capita or are people making the decision to work less hours per week, whether due to video games or simply wanting a better work/life balance, which has definitely become more of a thing for many?

Without context the idea being put forward boils down to people are working less on average and time spent playing videogames is increasing, therefore people are working less in order to game. But correlation does not imply causation, which this article comes across as doing and, essentially as Driavna says, is a manipulation.

*shrug*
So what? First world countries are already producing far more than they consume, so even if people would indeed work less to play video games - we can more than afford it. For food, it's roughly a third of the total food produced - probably not that much different for other industries.

I actually dont understand why you would post such a manipulative "anti-videogame-propaganda"-text in a forum related to an MMO, by definition the sort of videogame that eats up the most time...
I mean, I get why some journalists like to "attack" videogames and their community - but why bring this nonsense into this community?

Whats your, OPs, point behind this? I mean, are you suggesting that people go and put more hours of work in instead of doing something they enjoy?

lol New York Times.

Did no one doing this study note down the 14-17 hours worth of TV time? Compared to that, 1-2 hours of video games seems trivial

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Auteur

the fact the MSM and mainstream academia are putting serious research into this means something...

---

Yes, it means they aren't getting as much ad revenue as the shareholders demand so they're pulling an old scapegoat out of mothballs and putting a fresh coat of paint on it for their next round of clickbait. Maybe while they're at it they can send Jack Thompson and Jerry Falwell out on tour to tell everyone about how the Pokemon card game is a form of Satan worship again. :p

I kind of miss Jack Thompson. At least his war against video games was fun to watch as he embarrassed himself out of a job.

The margin increase is so small that it's pointless to care and that their data is mostly mobile games really curves the point