The Family That Games Together Online

GamerDad has a piece talking about families gaming together online. The article profiles some gamer families. Brian Reynolds, CEO of Big Huge Games, is cited as an example; He games together with his sons. The article also touches on the more serious issues of addiction and quality time. From the article: "Another hidden benefit to online games is that families spread over several states can keep in touch and play online together. Thompson agrees, 'I never foresaw how important the games online would become, but I did actually get a line added into my divorce decree that guaranteed me three days a week that I could get on the computer with my kids, via web cam. So I could communicate and see them. At the time, I wasn't a huge MMORPG player, so I didn't envision the role it would play.'"

Comments

Games and divorce?

[JonTurner]

Thompson: '...I did actually get a line added into my divorce decree that guaranteed me three days a week that I could get on the computer with my kids, via web cam. So I could communicate and see them.'

And that's supposed to be a good thing? I think it's just sad.

I know I'm pointing out the obvious, but perhaps he had spent more time with the family and less time gaming he wouldn't be divorcing and could be more than a face on the webcam or a guild member.

Yeah, so I'm judgemental. At least you'll get over it. His kids probably won't.

Re:Games and divorce?

[Mazda6s]

Perhaps the gaming had nothing to do with the divorce. People do get divorced for lots of other reasons. Some people just don't belong together and realize it too late.

He did mention that this was before the MMOGs hit so big.

You do have to admit that his seeing his kids via webcam is better than not seeing them at all. At least he's still involved.

Re:Games and divorce?

[Jacius]

As much as I hate to admit it, children are a public good. They should be supported by taxes.

(I really shouldn't feed the trolls, but this one is a little too good to pass up.)

Your plan is really quite fascinating, but it has a couple little kinks that will have to be worked out before you put it before Congress/Parliament/etc.:

1. It is inherently unfair. Suppose Citizen A is a single, employed man. Citizen B is an unemployed, "deadbeat dad" with 6 children. Why should Citizen A be forced to pay a monetary fine because Citizen B doesn't want to wear a condom during sex with his wife/girlfriend/partner/whore? Why should the conseqences of Citizen B's actions be paid for by everyone else? Should we also start paying for each others' car insurance, so that Citizen B isn't inconvenienced when he causes $20,000 in property damage when he tries to drive himself home after a night of drinking?

2. It is inherently unwise. Would you actually want your children to be raised or even paid-for by the government? Aside from such Brave New World-esque concerns as brainwashing ("Don't worry Senator, in 6 years when you run for President, you'll have enough 'supporters' to carry you through in 7 key states; I'll see to that! *evil laughter, thunder sounds*"), there is the more practical concern of money—in particular, the taking of money and flushing it down the toilet via a monolithic bureaucracy which spends 30-40% of the taxes maintaining itself, instead of supporting the children.

3. It is based on false assumptions. You say that children are a "public good". Is my life enriched because the couple next-door had a couple brats who scream and shout at all hours when I'm trying to sleep? Is your child's life enriched when she has to be crammed into a classroom with 40 other kids because there aren't enough teachers to handle them all? Children are not a public good, nor are they a public responsibility. Both the benefit and the responsibility of raising children are private, belonging only to those individuals who know and care for the children (parents, relatives, etc.).

Don't worry, though; I'm sure if you fix these small problems in your plan, it will be workable.

Err.. hrmm.. well, no, it looks like your plan would be quite non-existent then. Sorry if I let the air out of your balloon.

Re:Games and divorce?

[Jacius]

Uhuh, so you're suggesting that you receive no benefit from there being a fresh batch of teenagers entering the workforce every year.

If I had suggested such a thing, it would have been a foolish and unprovable claim. It would also be foolish to suggest, as you are doing, that teenagers are entering the workforce to provide some intangible benefit to "society". They are already being compensated for the benefit that they provide.

If the parents do a good job, they too are rewarded for their years of labor spent raising a child: both from the satisfaction of a "job well done" continuing the species and their own genes, and from emotional and material support in their old age.

Point out the person who is providing a service to me, but whom is not being paid for that service, and I will pay him in proportion to the services rendered. But don't expect me to give my money to nameless strangers so they can collect a second paycheck, nor to pay for services provided to people I have never even met.

We all enjoy the benefits of scientific discoveries and, as any mathematician will tell you, its a game for the young.

At what point did I suggest that humanity should stop breeding? Humanity has had quite a lot of success makin' babies without everyone else paying for the diapers afterwards; I see no reason why people would suddenly change their mating habits in response to the government abstaining (no pun intended) from trying to re-shape society.

We all enjoy the benefits of discoveries, yes, but we also compensate the discoverer—or, at least, such would be the case with a functional patent system. Right now, there are quite a few people making fortunes from other people's work (something which closely resembles what you are proposing, in fact). But that's another issue entirely.

Maybe someday we'll reverse the aging process and the effect children have on society will become negative, but until then we can either continue our hand-off, see no evil, hear no evil approach to introducing children to society or we can encourage parents to utilize the services of a professional child carer - and no, I'm not talking about a school teacher!

I'm not sure where you got the idea that all parents are perpetuating some great crime against each generation of infants, but I can assure you that there exist some parents who actually do a decent job of raising kids on their own.

Of course, there are bad parents, too—people who, in fairness, shouldn't have tried to raise children. But I take issue with your idea of taxing everyone, including the good parents, to pay for the mistakes of a few. You talk about the current system as a "see no evil, hear no evil" approach—what, then, do you call it when the government steps in and says, "You've done something bad, and that was unfortunate. But we'll take care of it. Don't you worry your little head. There's no need for you to change."

I'd also like to make clear that there is a major difference between encouraging certain parents to use child care and mandating that all parents use child care. One is optional, a mere suggestion of possible benefit. The other is an order, backed by threat of imprisonment and other forms of physical force. (I am not saying that the government will send the army to your door if you don't pay taxes one year; but a tax is a law, and a law is ultimately supported by the government's ability to enforce it through physical force.)

Gaming with family

[Tojosan]

My son and I have played been playing online games together since EQ1 came out.
He is now 16 and we are playing EQ2 together. There have been a couple of other MMORPGs in between.

Before that though, we gamed on consoles and I introduced him to PC games at an early age.

Gaming together, and play in general, is something all parents should do with their children. My son and I are much closer than we might have been, and definitely gotten some deeper insight into each other.

Playing an RPG like EQ or WoW, gives a young person a chance to exercise their personal skills in a variety of settings, being their with him/her gives a parent a chance to mentor, observce and assist.

As for the insight part, my son and I play totally differently in some areas. Grouping up, we learn how the other thinks about things, like fair play, how to treat others, and prioritizing.

That sad, game play is no substitute for good parenting. So, if you're excuse for not spending any other time with yoiur family is that you play EQ together....well, you read the article. :)

Laters,
Tojosan

Re:Sad

[The Snowman]

It's sad that mmorpg gaming counts as "quality time" with their family for some people.

I play World of Warcraft with my brother, who lives 850 miles away. It's either that or talking on the phone. At least in the game we can not only chat, but "do" something together. My wife also plays. While we don't count that as quality time together, it is just one more activity that we do together to have fun. Hell, our son even joins in sometimes. Just about all he can do is mash the keyboard to make our guys do random stuff like run around in circles and jump, but he loves it.

The key is that this is just one thing we do together. We play, we have fun, and we do other stuff, too.

Re:divorces

[Jamori]

Of course the real problem is the acceptability of divorce... if it was looked down on more, marriage might be taken more seriously.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with "divorce", per se. It's getting divorced once you have kids involved that is a problem.

It could certainly be argued that a large contributing factor to the high divorce rate is the [Christian] church's insistence upon marriage before sex. This has almost undoubtedly rushed many people into marriage who just don't want to wait any longer and believe they are doing the 'right thing'.

If people were "allowed" to take more time to come to a decision/realization about a relationship as opposed to the omg-I-can't-stand-it-anymore-lets-get-married-so-w e-can-have-sex rationale that many people succomb to, I think there would be far few marital problems, at least in the US.

Now, before you start saying, "but that's how it was back in the good ol' days and it worked just fine!" ... no, it's not. Contrary to popular belief, sex before marriage certainly wasn't looked down 'back in the day'. In US colonial times, specifically (which I believe sufficiently qualifies as 'back in the day') it was remaining unwed after getting pregnant that was looked down upon -- if not all-but-forbidden.

Unfortunately, I would argue, we have gotten away from that social mandate, as well. We have absolutely no social, ethical, or moral responsibility to remain married to someone when it "just isn't working out".

However, the exact opposite is true once there are kids that depend on you.