Ban Fortnite, Says Prince Harry (gamespot.com) 368
Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, is calling for the ban of popular battle royale game "Fortnite." The prominent member of the British royal family visited a YMCA in West London and spoke to mental health experts about addictive games and social media, saying that the latter is more addictive than drugs or alcohol. From a report: "[Fortnite] shouldn't be allowed," he said. "Where is the benefit of having it in your household? It's created to addict, an addiction to keep you in front of a computer for as long as possible. It's so irresponsible. It's like waiting for the damage to be done and kids turning up on your doorsteps and families being broken down." He also suggested that social media is "more addictive than alcohol and drugs." Further reading: Fortnite Creator Sees Epic Games Becoming as Big as Facebook, Google; and 'Fortnite' May be a Virtual Game, But It's Having Real-life, Dangerous Effects.
Translation (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Translation (Score:5, Funny)
"Teenagers should be breaking into their grandmother's liquor cabinet and stealing gin like we did."
Re: Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Sorry for post as AC, but I modded you up. This is the only good info here, and points to the real issue at hand. Parents abandoning their kids to these video games is worse for them than drugs or alcohol. It's even worse than video games.
And as far as playing video games with your kid, well that's simply genius. No, it's beyond genius - it's wisdom.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Since when did the royal family need votes?
Re: (Score:3)
How about France? Granted, it wasn't permenant, but it changed to a Republic, then to an Empire, then back to a Kingdom under the original dynasty, then back to a Republic, then back to an Empire and then back to a Republic again. I'll give you, there's not much indication at this point that will stop being a Republic any time soon.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a strong case for every government eventually doing so.
Kyklos [wikipedia.org]
tldl:
According to Polybius, who has the most fully developed version of the cycle, it rotates through the three basic forms of government, democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy and the three degenerate forms of each of these governments ochlocracy, oligarchy, and tyranny.
Re: (Score:3)
> I know no cases where a republic changed back to monarchy again.
Rome, though it transitioned through some other populist stuff first
England? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Ban royalty (Score:5, Insightful)
It's an outdated concept, a relic from when we we're uncivilized.
It has done more damage than drugs or alcohol.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I used to think that, but looking at the United States right now I'm seeing the advantages of a constitutional monarchy.
Re: (Score:2)
So you want random dictators for life...
Re: (Score:3)
At any time the monarch could desolve parliament and start issueing edicts I believe.
Nope, that's illegal. And we know this because Charles I attempted pretty much exactly this, was successfully prosecuted for it, and lost his head as a result.
And that's only in the UK. Other countries have a written constitution which limit the powers of the sovereign explicitly. In Australia, for example, the constitutional effect of dissolving Parliament is forcing a new election.
As far as I know, there is no country in which H.M. can legally raise taxes without the consent of Parliament. This has been t
Re: Ban royalty (Score:2)
Really? I'm not seeing a benefit to the monarchy. [wikipedia.org]
You're going at it the wrong way (Score:5, Insightful)
A ruling class by any name would oppress as much.
Re: (Score:2)
Like not actually having freedom of speech?
Re: (Score:2)
well yeah they wanted to keep the slave profits for themselves
Re: (Score:2)
If their Constitutional duty is to not elect people who aren't fit to govern according to one half of voters (and Lanthanide), then they clearly failed.
Re: (Score:3)
And Alexander Hamilton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Hamilton viewed the system as superior to direct popular election. First, he recognized, the "sense of the people should operate in the choice", and would through the election of the electors to the Electoral College. Second, the electors would be: ...men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.
Such men would be "most likely to have the information and discernment" to make a good choice and to avoid the election of anyone "not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications."
Corruption of an electoral process could most likely arise from the desire of "foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils." To minimize risk of foreign machinations and inducements, the electoral college members would have only a "transient existence" and no elector could be a "senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States"; electors would make their choice in a "detached situation", whereas a preexisting body of federal office-holders "might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes".
Re: (Score:2)
No, just someone who lives in a Commonwealth country and likes it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Ban royalty (Score:4, Interesting)
It's absolutely not true that the monarchy is a net gain for UK plc. To make that claim you have to assume that, to pick one example , no-one would visit Windsor Castle if we abolished the monarchy. Just like no-one ever visits the Palace of Versailles anymore.
It's royalist propaganda. The second claim is no better, since it's so vague it makes no actual sense.
Re: (Score:2)
It's an outdated concept, a relic from when we we're uncivilized.
I agree they're outdated, but they are also a nice reminder of tradition, And
usually they have the candor to stay out of political matters.
If the latter changes, then I would firmly suggest a democratic revolution and abolishment of the monarchy in form of that done with the first French republic [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Well, royality of the current day british sort is basically a bunch of people that have been groomed to become diplomats from birth (or since they married into the family) that you can use to interact with head of states instead of the current leader of goverment, without insulting other countries. Yes, in theory, they have some more power over laws in the country, but they never use it. Besides that they also give turists something to look at and overall bring more money in than they are paid.
It is a bit h
Those who live in glass houses (Score:5, Funny)
He's a prince and he's the one complaining about other people being in fantasy land?
well... (Score:5, Funny)
I didn't vote for him
Obligatory Monty Python (Score:5, Funny)
I am your King! [youtube.com]
I didn't know we had a king...
I thought we were an autonomous collective..
Come on, more addictive than drugs? (Score:3, Funny)
I have trouble believing Fortnite is more addictive than drugs or alcohol, both which actually make you feel good for a while before making you feel like garbage.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Come on, more addictive than drugs? (Score:4, Interesting)
I think it is plausible that free to play games, where the goal of creating them is more or less to get people addicted (so they buy more stuff), could be more addictive than drugs or alcohol, where the goal is to give plusure. I am not sure if we are there yet, but in principle I could see that happening.
The important difference between free to play games on one side and drugs and alcohol on the other is that the cost to the individual is much lower. The cost is mainly in terms of time spend on it that could be spend more productively for the games (and lets face it, most everybody waste quite a bit of their time on things), where for drugs and alcohol it futher includes the persons health and that they can easier lead to crimes (because you need to spend much more money on getting a fix and crime is consided an easy way to get money, correctly or otherwise). It also means that it would be harder to ban, because while drugs and alcohol has negative effects on society outside the individual, the negative effects are more exclusively focused on the individual for games.
Re: (Score:2)
More that these games are avaialble to younger people wherese the afforementioned are not.
Also youngesters are now firast exposed to games though phones and so get indoctrinated by the free shit.
Normal people know better than the play them.
Though of course this is overblown. The potential spending of pointless money is the problem here. I used to play say the bard's tale untill 3am as a kid. Not all the time but sometimes. I did fine, though I am a natural late person and a late riser. of course school's th
How indeed (Score:2)
Yeah, how could interactive fiction from a company that hired psychologists
You act like that means it would be MORE effective.
You get a chemist and a psychologist in a room and see who can come up with the more addictive product...
Re: (Score:2)
When the product that the psychologist designed is available to children under the age of 18 to play on their phone at any time of day, and parents are enabling them to do so, and the psychologist's product is legal, my investment money would go to the psychologist, not the chemist.
Fortnite brought in $2.4 billion in legal revenue last year, for a "free to play" game.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, how could interactive fiction from a company that hired psychologists to make the interactive fiction addictive actually be addictive?
All electronic games are made to be addictive, ever since the heyday of pinball. They should have hired the people behind Candy Crush Saga or Farmville or something if that was their goal.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
All electronic games are made to be addictive, ever since the heyday of pinball. They should have hired the people behind Candy Crush Saga or Farmville or something if that was their goal.
Tencent bought 40% of Epic Games back in 2013, specifically to make addictive games that will bring in a lot of revenue. Fortnite brought in $2.4 billion last year in revenue for a "free to play game".
Why would they hire the makers of Candy Crush Saga or Farmville when they themselves are BETTER at making addictive games than the makers of those games?
And yes, it's true that electronic games are designed to be addictive and always have been, it's good business sense after all. But there's two differences he
Re: (Score:2)
Actually you can't get the full gameplay experience without paying money.
If you don't buy a skin, then your player's appearance randomly changes between matches.
If you don't pay money, then you stop getting rewards once you reach level 62 in a season, you also get FAR fewer rewards over that time - if you pay money, you get at least 1 reward every single level up to 62 and then beyond to 100. If you don't pay money, you get a reward every 2-3 levels up to 62 and then nothing afterwards.
There are challenges
Re: Come on, more addictive than drugs? (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually you can't get the full gameplay experience without paying money.
If you don't buy a skin, then your player's appearance randomly changes between matches.
If you don't pay money, then you stop getting rewards once you reach level 62 in a season, you also get FAR fewer rewards over that time - if you pay money, you get at least 1 reward every single level up to 62 and then beyond to 100. If you don't pay money, you get a reward every 2-3 levels up to 62 and then nothing afterwards.
There are challenges that you need to complete any 4 of in order to earn extra experience to level up. You can only complete 3 if you don't pay money.
None of the things you mention affects "gameplay experience" at all. You're talking about purely cosmetic skins/items, leveling up to unlock purely cosmetic items, and challenges to level up quicker to unlock purely cosmetic items. The game plays exactly the same whether you've spent $0, $20, or $500 on skins and/or battle passes.
Better Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Ban people from having kiddos if they're not up to the task of actually being a parent.
If you NEED the Government to step in to keep your kids from playing a game, you are doing it wrong on multiple levels.
Re: (Score:3)
You don't know they're unfit to be parents until they have kids.
You can't then unborn the children without getting in to a whole lot of ethical issues.
Better Better Idea (Score:3)
Let everyone have children. Than the ones unfit to be parents will let their kids waste away playing videogames and that genepool will be eliminated.
Wait I just realized Fortnite is an Eugenics conspiracy.
The nanny state (Score:4, Insightful)
However, the nanny state has proven to have limited success. There will always be losers who can't manage their time or their impulses, and society will always have to deal with these people the best they can. Be it pot, or gambling, or video games, it all comes down to who has the coping mechanisms to succeed in the world, and who is going to waste their lives doing whatever the current cool thing is, in this case Fortnite.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless a healthy coping mechanism is playing games. Everything in Moderation. The King is way behind in his reading and rhetoric though. This was all hashed out in the 80s. There was an Imgur post on it today.
https://imgur.com/gallery/b5Kl... [imgur.com]
Then what (Score:3)
Re:Then what (Score:5, Funny)
Yep, no problem there.
You'll play Pong and you'll LIKE IT!
Re:Then what (Score:5, Funny)
First they ban fortnights, then what? Weeks? Months? Years?
Re: (Score:2)
This is relevant: 80's political cartoons about gaming.
https://imgur.com/gallery/b5Kl... [imgur.com]
A worse addiction... (Score:2, Funny)
A much worse addiction still is monarchy. Look at how many lives have been destroyed by it. Most of those born into its seductive grasp refuse to drop it.
Fortnite wasn't really on my radar until... (Score:3)
Hmm so Fortnite wasn't really on my radar at all until I read this and was like hmm what's all this, then?
Oh it reminds me of the year or so of my life I devoted to Half-Life deathmatches.... totally not going to.. oh heck, lets have a look-see.... .. 1 year later... fuuuuuuuccccc....
Re: (Score:3)
Watch this video and learn how Fortnite is deliberately designed to be addictive and get children to spend money: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
It made $2.4 BILLION in revenue last year, for a "free to play" game. Clearly they know what they're doing. You don't just "accidentally" make that amount of money from a "popular" game.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
number of kids having died from the fortnight dance: none.
That you know of, anyway.
You get caught in the wrong neighborhood doing that dance... your life might very well be forfeit.
Re: (Score:2)
But that makes it entirely logical! The worst problem must be Fortnite, then drugs and then, basically unimportant, alcohol. Unless we can get the numbers of death from Fortnite up to the level of Alcohol, it must be fought with all determination, filling up prisons, etc.!
Different worlds (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fortnite is deliberately designed to be addictive and get children to spend money, which is the point you're missing and the point that Harry is talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A football game that you spend money on tickets to see happens once or twice a week. You can play fortnite on your phone whenever you want.
Yes, parents are responsible for their children, but also children aren't allowed to go to casinos until they're 18.
Fortnite literally is not different than what casinos are trying to do, it is deliberately designed to make people addicted and spend money. Watch this video to see how insidious it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Ban fun things that I don't like (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, I know next to nothing about this guy... but I would've figured him to be someone who actually wasted too much time playing Fortnite rather than arguing for its ban.
Maybe Kate Middleton kicked his butt in one too many head to head matches.
Re:Ban fun things that I don't like (Score:5, Interesting)
Says the guy who has enough free time on his hands to go visit addiction services and see what problems they are dealing with in society, and who has a platform he can use to talk about the problems he has seen with his own eyes.
Prince Harry Sez (Score:2)
social media is more addictive then crack or meth, and I'm sure he has a wealth of experience with all three.
Ban the Monarchy! (Score:5, Insightful)
Fortnite is FAR less of an economic drain for the U.K. than the continued waste of having a pointless "Royal Family" monarchy that doesn't even serve a real political purpose anymore!
But that said? I gave Fortnite a try and the game held my interest for no more than an hour or two. I know they keep downloading regular updates to it, so it's possible if I got in the mood to play again, I'd enjoy another hour or so of game-play in it? But I already paid to purchase PUBG first, when it was all the rage -- and played it a bit until I got bored with it. So Fortnite *really* just felt like another PUBG after that.
I see no reason it's any more addictive than any other online game? It just depends what an individual finds the most entertaining and compelling to play, and how much free time they have to invest in gaming. Sure, many kids or teens get hooked on video games and spend too much time on them. But the same parents who gripe about such things are often seen spending too much of their own time at casinos, gambling, or doing other things we could say are "bad for you" and should be banned. In the end, it's simply part of being human.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Fortnite is FAR less of an economic drain for the U.K. than the continued waste of having a pointless "Royal Family" monarchy that doesn't even serve a real political purpose anymore!
Why are you talking about this being an economic drain? Prince Harry isn't. He isn't say "ban Fortnite because it's an economic drain on the country". He's saying "ban Fortnite because its destroying people's lives, and for children damaging their education".
Are you suggesting that the Royal Family causes people to become addicts of royal memorabilia, or something?
I see no reason it's any more addictive than any other online game?
Well watch this video then and learn something: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Wow speaks volumes (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Illegal drugs don't have multinational companies pushing them on children. Fortnite does.
Re: (Score:2)
Illegal drugs don't have multinational companies pushing them on children.
I would definitely call many cartels "multinational companies", and they do a lot of pushing.
Fortnite is deliberately designed to be addictive (Score:5, Informative)
Fortnite actually is deliberately designed to be addictive. Tencent bought 40% of Epic games back in 2013 with the explicit intention of making addictive games such as Fortnite that could wring as much money out of players as possible. In 2018 Fortnite brought in $2.4 BILLION in revenue, for a game that is ostensibly "free to play".
4 prominent employees including Cliff Bleszinski left Epic after the merger due to Tencent's involvement in the company, their plans for monetization of games or both.
This video covers the general structure and psychological manipulations that the game uses to get kids to keep playing and keep spending money and also talks about the 'in-game concert' that Slashdot had a story about last week: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you watched the video?
No?
Go watch the video and you will see why Fortnite brought in $2.4 billion in revenue last year.
It is not the same as "other games" and hence why it IS fair to single out Fortnite.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but what is the consequence? There is no objective scale for "addictiveness" of games. Hence anything that could be done would just bring in censorship and a brief look at European history makes it amply clear how bad that idea is.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, I completely agree.
On the other hand, children aren't allowed to go to casinos until they turn 18.
I don't have the answer, but pretending there is no problem, or that it's fully up to parents to monitor, does not seem to be the answer either.
Don't ban it, push it (Score:2)
If playing a game involving massive interaction, problem solving, and math skills is sooooo addictive shouldn't we use that to treat other addictions?
The same was said about alot of things. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, fantasy role playing games, television, rock and roll, jazz, reading books....
The cry to limit youth access to things or outright ban them entirely because of some perceived "moral" damage to society has been going on for a lot longer than you or I have been alive.
Like father, like son (Score:2)
Although.... he isn't wrong about social media,
Applies to other things too (Score:2)
"Where is the benefit of having it in your household? It's created to addict
The same applies to TV, games, playing cards, dice, books that aren't textbooks, alcohol, coffee, tea, sugar, etc. There are lots of things in the household that you don't really *need*, aren't required to sustain life, and you may use only because you enjoy it, not because there's any practical use/requirement.
Surprise (Score:3)
Entitled, staggeringly wealthy hereditary royal scion decides he doesn't see the need for something, his reasonable suggestion is to ban it entirely.
Old autocratic habits die hard.
Tell you what, Harry old chum, when you have the same entertainment opportunities that the rest of us have and have to measure COST as part of the value calculus, then we'll listen to what you have to say, what-ho?
The UNKNOWN source (Score:2)
So all of these Battle Royale games stem from a series of mods created by "Player Unknown", and they just happen to turn out to be the most addictive games ever? WAKE UP SHEEPLE! The proof of alien social engineering is right there in your face! God bless the Prince for pointing this out to us.
Alternatively, Harry may just mistakenly think the game mode is called "Battle Royals" and he's worried it's teaching the peasants to revolt.
Re: (Score:2)
Alternatively, Harry may just mistakenly think the game mode is called "Battle Royals" and he's worried it's teaching the peasants to revolt.
Well, given that this is not an intellectual giant speaking here...
Talking to mental health experts... (Score:2)
Instead of listening to them? Curious...
Wonder if he asked any of them whether they thought Fortnite should be banned? Or just told them it should be banned....
He has not thought this through (Score:2)
Sure, the addictiveness is there and it is intended and designed in. But "banning" is would just be another step into an even more authoritarian state that censors and controls everything its citizens are allowed to see, are allowed to read and are allowed to play. That is a vastly more serious problem as European history of the last 100 years nicely shows.
Re: (Score:2)
Children are banned from casinos until they turn 18. Are you suggesting that that is a bad law that should be repealed?
Everything old is new... (Score:4, Informative)
20 Years ago...
"[Everquest] shouldn't be allowed," he said. "Where is the benefit of having it in your household? It's created to addict, an addiction to keep you in front of a computer for as long as possible. It's so irresponsible. It's like waiting for the damage to be done and kids turning up on your doorsteps and families being broken down." He also suggested that social media is "more addictive than alcohol and drugs."
Re: (Score:3)
50 Years ago...
"[TV] shouldn't be allowed," he said. "Where is the benefit of having it in your household? It's created to addict, an addiction to keep you in front of a [TV] for as long as possible. It's so irresponsible. It's like waiting for the damage to be done and kids turning up on your doorsteps and families being broken down." He also suggested that [tobacco] is "more addictive than alcohol and drugs."
Would his lordship like sugar (Score:3)
with that teabagging?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ban rock music (Score:5, Insightful)
Ban rock music
And dungeons and dragons while you're at it
And the waltz! And pool halls - that starts with "P" and that rhymes with "T" and that stands for trouble! And hemp - oh, wait, we did that one.
And most importantly - Blame Canada!
There's always a moral panic over something. People seem to like them. After all, it can't be bad parenting, it must be something else making my teen act like a teenager.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't personally know anyone hat plays DND, but plenty of people who play fortnite.
That says a lot about your social circles. I know a bunch D&D players but no one who plays Fortnite. Among all my friends and relatives, my dad is the only person who watches TV -- and most do read books (including dad).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
there is a Dick and Denial group?
You know, Asking for a friend..
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
>In the Western world, phosphate usage has declined owing to ecological problems with the damage to lakes and rivers through eutrophication
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Safe for us, directly. Not so much for any animals that live in the water. And anything that threatens the health of our ecosystem, threatens our survival as a species.
Re: (Score:2)
What's with this new era of banning everything?
So far where I live they've banned:
Smoking in the park - because everyone else also has a right to not breathe your smoke
Smoking at the University - see above, and by the way, this is private property.
Menthol cigarettes - ok , that's kinda weird.
Plastic bags (this got un-done by the State) - because people have been proven to be incapable of putting them in the trash.
Styrofoam carry out containers - see above
Trisodium Phospate (This really pissed me off because it's a GREAT de-greaser, and it's very safe) - because you pour it down the drain and it ends up polluting rivers and the ocean
NYC tried? to ban large sodas.
Just stop it. You're not really doing anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Austin?
Re: (Score:2)
What, you think associations don't exist in Britain?
YMCA = Young Men's Christian Association. Try googling before posting stupid questions, it makes you look smarter.
Re: (Score:2)
Argggh, a bunch of religious fanatics! Humanity does so love its collective stupidity it enshrines it in associations like these.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but every time I hear someone ask an atheist what keeps them from raping and killing as much as they want if they don't believe in god, I'm glad religion exists to reign in such apparent murderous psychopaths.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oh jeez... (Score:4, Insightful)
They have as many propaganda issues as America...
They have the same propaganda issues as America, largely due to the owners of the propaganda organs being the same people.
Re: (Score:2)
Saying that, we're also in a current situation with Brexit where not a single politician will ever say the words "the voters got it wrong and maybe we should deal with the underlying issues of why they voted that way rather than commit economic suicide", so maybe we just don't like blaming the root cause of issues because they'd be too hard to fix.
And they would expose the wrong people as self-centered, dangerous morons. Although I have to say the sheer amount of incompetence, arrogance and basic lack of capability to do anything right that the British political class is currently demonstrating is staggering. We all knew they were nil-whits. But this bad? I think at this time they do not have any reputation and respect left to lose. A kindergarten class is more disciplined and has more strategic thinking. The Queen should probably put on her EU-getup
Re: (Score:2)
I have dozens of posts saying the same thing because 90% of the posts in this thread are dopey replies attacking Harry for talking about a problem he has observed because he has some privileges in life, or dismissing Fortnite as being a problem because it's "just like other games" when it isn't.
I'm bringing facts to the debate and I've posted it many times in the hopes that the facts aren't overlooked and that people might learn something, and that we might be able to have a rational discussion instead of s