Slashdot Mirror


Ban Fortnite, Says Prince Harry (gamespot.com)

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.

204 of 368 comments (clear)

  1. Translation by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Funny

    Get back to work peasants. These castles aren't going to build themselves.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Translation by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Since when did the royal family need votes?

    2. Re:Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Someone remind me again, why is opinion of some worthless parasite ( what did he 'produce' in his life, everything was given ) newsworthy.

      Besides obvious tight connections between owners of propaganda i mean 'news' and royal family of course.

    3. Re:Translation by Pseudonym · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Teenagers should be breaking into their grandmother's liquor cabinet and stealing gin like we did."

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    4. Re: Translation by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seriously, spend more time with your kids, stop neglecting them, play Fortnite with them.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I know no cases where a republic changed back to monarchy again.

      Err, what about England. You know, the country where Harry's grandma is Queen.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_England

      And, yes, there are other more recent ones. How about Spain?
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Spanish_Republic

    6. Re: Translation by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    7. Re:Translation by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

      Royal status can usually only be lost once - I know no cases where a republic changed back to monarchy again.

      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.

    8. Re:Translation by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      There's a strong case for every government eventually doing so.

      Kyklos

      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.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    9. Re: Translation by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Iran.

    10. Re:Translation by Tyr07 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Pretty much.

      Social media is more dangerous to the people in power than drugs and alcohol, is more like it. That information age is really upsetting them.

    11. Re:Translation by antdude · · Score: 1

      So, play Warcraft? :P

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    12. Re:Translation by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      You would be concerned about the truth if your historical parentage used to publicly torture to death anyone who disagreed with them and now their descendent want to be showered with adulation for being related to those homicidal maniacs.

      So Prince, when will you denounce the ancestors and the thrown they provided, for being a bunch of murderous cunts of the worst sort. This moron should be ashamed of his family line not pouncing about like it has worth, where is the shame.

      They are tearing down statues of war mongers et al, of bad history, when is the ultimate of perverted sickness going to be torn down, the monarchy, the worship of the worst humanity ever had. Power achieved and sustain by mass murder of the worst sort, these are disgusting people who should live in hiding ashamed of who their ancestor were and how this current generation of arse holes got their money, off the blood of their fellow citizens ancestors, the ones who survived those depredations.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    13. Re: Translation by F1re · · Score: 2

      > 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/...

      --
      ...there is no sig...
    14. Re: Translation by johannesg · · Score: 1

      > 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/...

      The Netherlands, 1672, and again in 1813.

    15. Re: Translation by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      France. Bonaparte III et. al.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    16. Re:Translation by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the info. It's interesting that wikipedia doesn't have any analyses or critiques listed. I'll do further research.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    17. Re:Translation by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      You would be concerned about the truth if your historical parentage used to publicly torture to death anyone who disagreed with them and now their descendent want to be showered with adulation for being related to those homicidal maniacs.

      So Prince, when will you denounce the ancestors and the thrown they provided, for being a bunch of murderous cunts of the worst sort. This moron should be ashamed of his family line not pouncing about like it has worth, where is the shame.

      They are tearing down statues of war mongers et al, of bad history, when is the ultimate of perverted sickness going to be torn down, the monarchy, the worship of the worst humanity ever had. Power achieved and sustain by mass murder of the worst sort, these are disgusting people who should live in hiding ashamed of who their ancestor were and how this current generation of arse holes got their money, off the blood of their fellow citizens ancestors, the ones who survived those depredations.

      It's not so bad. ol' Harry isn't a royal by blood, It's well known Di was fucking both these guys

      https://i.pinimg.com/originals...

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    18. Re:Translation by hai_Priesty · · Score: 1

      His opinions may be ridiculous this time but he did serve the Army for ten years.

      Even considering the likelihood of him given the least dangerous bases and tasks, 2 tours to Afghanistan is more than what one expects a average privileged rich kid to contribute, let alone a prince. Also considering that he's "just" a troop leader of 11 soldiers after a Troop Leaders’ Course at an earlier point, I think they haven't padded his positions or "trophied" him much just for being a prince and he did fair work.

      People that are fixated to and have an unhealthy obsession to seriously weigh in every single statement made by royal family - those people are probably the larger problem, not Prince Harry.

  2. Ban royalty by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    1. Re:Ban royalty by Pseudonym · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I used to think that, but looking at the United States right now I'm seeing the advantages of a constitutional monarchy.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    2. Re:Ban royalty by Kreplock · · Score: 2

      They bring in at least a couple hundred million pounds more revenue than they cost, and the Brit public tends to have ~80% approval rate of them.

    3. Re: Ban royalty by FunkSoulBrother · · Score: 1

      well yeah they wanted to keep the slave profits for themselves

    4. Re:Ban royalty by harrkev · · Score: 1

      So you want random dictators for life...

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    5. Re:Ban royalty by mysidia · · Score: 1

      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.

    6. Re:Ban royalty by Reaper9889 · · Score: 1

      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 hard to come up with a good pragmatic reason why this style of royalities should be removed.

    7. Re: Ban royalty by Ken_g6 · · Score: 1
      --
      (T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
    8. Re: Ban royalty by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      It was actually over a 2% sales tax. What a disgrace we've become since then.

    9. Re:Ban royalty by hairyfeet · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'd say they did pretty damn well, after all it was Shillary that pushed Trump in the first place (pied piper strategy) and after the people heard her laughing about getting a scumbag who raped a 12 year old girl off, seen her laughing about killing foreign leaders with "we came, we saw, he died ha ha ha" (and brought back slavery in that country, great going you sociopath) and saw her policies were all PRO Wall Street, Pro globalism, PRO wars, they looked and said...."Yeah...ya know what? A former gameshow host who trolls on Twitter about how hot his wife is is a HELL of a lot less dangerous than this psycho" and that is why you have Trump now.

      So I'd say if you want to blame anybody blame Shillary and Wasserman Schultz for rigging the primary against Bernie who had a damn good shot of beating Trump, Shillary had so many skeletons in her closet and was just so unlikeable all Trump had to do was play a few clips of her being smug AF, falling down and looking like a loon and just shrug and say "Crooked Hillary" and it was in the bag.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    10. Re: Ban royalty by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    11. Re:Ban royalty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There were other people running than Trump and Clinton. Regardless of anyone's politics, right or left, they could have easily done better.

    12. Re:Ban royalty by bongey · · Score: 1

      Like not actually having freedom of speech?

    13. Re:Ban royalty by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      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.

    14. Re:Ban royalty by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      No, just someone who lives in a Commonwealth country and likes it.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    15. Re:Ban royalty by WhoBeDaPlaya · · Score: 1

      Are you sure? At least in the United States, its making a comeback.

    16. Re:Ban royalty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If they're so popular, they'll have no worries about winning an election for the position, right?

    17. Re: Ban royalty by Type44Q · · Score: 1
      Once upon a time, there were Englishmen who were smart enough to grasp the inherent truth of this.

      We call them Americans.

    18. Re:Ban royalty by Lanthanide · · Score: 2

      And Alexander Hamilton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      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".

    19. Re:Ban royalty by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'd be willing to trade Fortnite for the hilarity of watching his-lordship's pampered ass be thrown out of his high-class public housing for good. Better learn to code, Harry.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    20. Re:Ban royalty by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      The part that dismays me is that if Rand Paul had stayed out of the Republican primary and ran as the Libertarian candidate, he might be President now.

    21. Re:Ban royalty by hairyfeet · · Score: 1, Troll

      I would have been happy to have either Rand or Bernie as both were anti-war and both seem to really care about this country....but that wasn't the choice we got.

      Our choice was a former gameshow host that trolls on Twitter or a war mongering corpratist sociopath....sorry but if my only choices are a Twitter Troll or a war loving, Wall Street kissing sociopath that used her influence to keep herself out of jail (show me ANY time where taking a hammer to cellphones and using DoD wiping software to erase data under subpoena hasn't gotten the person jail time for obstruction) while cheering sending more of our children to shithole countries to die so her pals can clean up? Yeah I'll take the Twitter troll any day of the damn week, he is frankly a hell of a lot less of a threat.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    22. Re:Ban royalty by thoughtlover · · Score: 1

      Ban Fortnite..? It's like Harry doesn't know about Slashdot.

      --
      No sig for you! Come back one year!
    23. Re:Ban royalty by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      It's an outdated concept, a relic from when we we're uncivilized. It has done more damage than drugs or alcohol.

      Come and see the violence inherent in the system, HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    24. Re: Ban royalty by Cederic · · Score: 1

      To make that claim you have to assume that, to pick one example , no-one would visit Windsor Castle if we abolished the monarchy

      If you abolished the monarchy then Windsor Castle would possibly become a greater tourist attraction as the new owners may allow greater access to tourists.

      You would however lose the £300m/year contribution made by the Crown Estates to the Treasury, a sum that's net of the payments from the Government to the royal family.

      In other words the Queen would receive her current income plus an additional £300m/year. The Government would receive at least £150m/year less than it does currently.

      Then of course you'd also have to pay someone to do all of the long arduous and boring as fuck work that the royal family current perform.

      It's royalist propaganda.

      No, it's basic accountancy.

    25. Re: Ban royalty by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      I am so bloody pleased with /. lads attitude to the royal morons

      Compare to reddit gits. These imbeciles are all pro royal. Stupid chavs.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    26. Re:Ban royalty by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      ...whereas a preexisting body of federal office-holders "might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes".

      Mr. Hamilton underestimated how rapidly the electors could be prostituted.

    27. Re: Ban royalty by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      You would however lose the £300m/year contribution made by the Crown Estates to the Treasury, a sum that's net of the payments from the Government to the royal family.

      There's an argument to be made that the royal family has no business owning the Crown Estates to begin with, since they only existed because of divine right of kings to take whatever shit they wanted. Just because the theft is 800 years old doesn't mean it wasn't theft.

      Now you could say that theft, even grand theft, has a statute of limitations, and indeed it does, but should there really be a limit on stealing large chunks of a country?

    28. Re: Ban royalty by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Well just how far back would you like to reset property ownership? Can't see that causing any problems at all for anybody...

  3. Re:Ban rock music by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    And fox hunting?

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  4. Those who live in glass houses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    He's a prince and he's the one complaining about other people being in fantasy land?

    1. Re:Those who live in glass houses by mjwx · · Score: 1

      He's a prince and he's the one complaining about other people being in fantasy land?

      To be fair, he's the serving prince, meaning he was in the army and flew helicopters... So yeah, like most people fresh out of the army, he's not exactly in tune with normal society.

      However he's also a private citizen and free to say what he likes. As a UK resident and commonwealth citizen, I am free to disagree with him. Prince Harry has no real power beyond being popular and he's not the most popular of the brothers.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  5. well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I didn't vote for him

  6. Obligatory Monty Python by bit+trollent · · Score: 5, Funny

    I am your King!

    I didn't know we had a king...

    I thought we were an autonomous collective..

    1. Re: Obligatory Monty Python by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is simply the violence inherent in the system! I am being oppressed!

  7. Come on, more addictive than drugs? by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, 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.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Come on, more addictive than drugs? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

      Playing Fortnite just makes me feel like garbage, period.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    2. Re:Come on, more addictive than drugs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, how could interactive fiction from a company that hired psychologists to make the interactive fiction addictive actually be addictive?

    3. Re:Come on, more addictive than drugs? by Reaper9889 · · Score: 3, 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.

    4. Re:Come on, more addictive than drugs? by chispito · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    5. Re:Come on, more addictive than drugs? by Carrot007 · · Score: 1

      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 these days start far too early for people like me, so it becomes more of an issue because of that too.

      I feel it is not that anything is more addictive than anything else. Just some people are more perceptable to be addicted to certain things. Unbfortunatly again with it being targeted to the young, they are too young to know their weaknesses and some just get lost in it.

      TLDR? FTP games with "purchases" should be over 18 only (at least we can blame the parents then).

      --
      +----------------- | What is the question!
    6. Re:Come on, more addictive than drugs? by Lanthanide · · Score: 1, 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 here:
      1. Fortnite has decades of experience in psychological research to draw upon and a company with the money and incentive to do so
      2. You can play fortnite on your phone. You couldn't play pinball on your phone. This means you can play fortnite pretty much anywhere you want to, any time you want to. And once you've invested money in buying skins and other things for the game, you want to keep playing to "get your money's worth". And all your friends are playing too, and that's all your friend group ever talks about...

    7. Re: Come on, more addictive than drugs? by Lanthanide · · Score: 1

      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.

    8. Re: Come on, more addictive than drugs? by mcl630 · · Score: 3, 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.

    9. Re: Come on, more addictive than drugs? by Lanthanide · · Score: 1

      Part of the gameplay experience is how you experience it, and how others react to you in the game world.

      That does change based on cosmetic items.

    10. Re:Come on, more addictive than drugs? by sheramil · · Score: 1

      All electronic games are made to be addictive, ever since the heyday of pinball.

      You have obviously never played "Bordy Gordy 2".

    11. Re: Come on, more addictive than drugs? by chispito · · Score: 1

      Part of the gameplay experience is how you experience it, and how others react to you in the game world.

      That does change based on cosmetic items.

      Just because cosmetics exist does not mean you must have them.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    12. Re:Come on, more addictive than drugs? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Girls play Fortnite too.

      Record low sexual activity is due to a range of societal factors. Fortnite doesn't even make the top ten.

  8. Better Idea by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 4, 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.

    1. Re:Better Idea by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

      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.

    2. Re:Better Idea by trawg · · Score: 1

      It's not clear from the original source (this BBC article, but it's certainly seems possible he's actually saying this is something that parents should do - /not/ something that governments should do.

      The only quote bit I can find is "That game shouldn't be allowed. Where is the benefit of having it in your household?". There's not a lot of other context. By 'your household' I'd argue he's talking to parents and householder owners.

      i.e., on the surface this seems like a yet another massive non-story hugely blown out of proportion by the (especially gaming) media.

    3. Re:Better Idea by sheramil · · Score: 1

      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.

      How about a phone-based video game where people have to bring up virtual children? Like tamagotchi. if the virtual children don't survive, or if the kids become sociopathic degenerates or even politicians, the failed parents are given forced vasectomies and tubal ligations.

    4. Re:Better Idea by Necroloth · · Score: 1

      48th trimester? I don't think it means what you think it means.

    5. Re: Better Idea by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      You can't then unborn the children without getting in to a whole lot of ethical issues.

      So you're saying you've got a design for a cannon that'll launch obnoxious losers back into their mommies' cooches... and the only "issues" remaining to resolve are ethical in nature??

  9. Re: Ban rock music by KiloByte · · Score: 2

    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).

    --
    The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
  10. Re: Ban rock music by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Hey Snowflake, the world existed before you were born.

  11. The nanny state by fermion · · Score: 3, Insightful
    From the point of view of a king, there is great reason to micromanage the peasants.

    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.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    1. Re:The nanny state by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      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...

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    2. Re:The nanny state by renec · · Score: 1

      I just want to make sure I understand your position.

      You are saying that, with an understanding that all people are born with a certain finite number of "hours" of life available to them before death, that somebody choosing to spend that time doing something they find relaxing and pleasurable rather than using that finite time to labour for the benefit of a business owner is a "waste of time"?

    3. Re:The nanny state by sheramil · · Score: 1

      From the point of view of a king, there is great reason to micromanage the peasants.

      Then he should be playing "Dungeon Keeper 2".

  12. Then what by DarkRookie2 · · Score: 2

    Whats next. PUBG? Halo? CoD? MoH? CS? LoL? DotA? Destiny? Diablo? StarCraft?

    --
    http://progressquest.com/spoltog.php?name=Son+Of+Son+Of+DarkRookie
    1. Re:Then what by lactose99 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yep, no problem there.

      You'll play Pong and you'll LIKE IT!

      --
      Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
    2. Re:Then what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      First they ban fortnights, then what? Weeks? Months? Years?

    3. Re:Then what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The solution here is not to ban games that people like to play.

      The solution is to educate and train people in the nature of these games, and in the unreality of the rewards, and in how to recognize and control addiction in themselves.

      These games can be played responsibly by people who don't have problems with addiction. Such people should be allowed to play if they choose.

      Banning games because some people can't handle addiction is like saying a man can't have a steak because a baby can't chew it.

      It's not the right answer.

    4. Re:Then what by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      This is relevant: 80's political cartoons about gaming.

      https://imgur.com/gallery/b5Kl...

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    5. Re:Then what by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      Mod UP pls!

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    6. Re:Then what by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Solitaire is ok. Minesweeper is too violent.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    7. Re:Then what by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      King's Quest

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    8. Re:Then what by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Then parsecs

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    9. Re:Then what by DarkRookie2 · · Score: 1

      Chess isn't so much a game as a memorization test.

      --
      http://progressquest.com/spoltog.php?name=Son+Of+Son+Of+DarkRookie
    10. Re:Then what by archatheist · · Score: 1

      Zork. It is addictive, makes you afraid of the dark, and promotes witchcraft. Witchcraft!!!

      --
      "No sane man will dance." -- Marcus Tullius Cicero
  13. Re: Ban rock music by DarkRookie2 · · Score: 2

    The fuck it did. You cant prove it. Y'all might be figment of my imagination.

    --
    http://progressquest.com/spoltog.php?name=Son+Of+Son+Of+DarkRookie
  14. A worse addiction... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  15. How indeed by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    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...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:How indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You have stumbled across the business plan for Purdue Pharma

    2. Re:How indeed by Lanthanide · · Score: 1

      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.

  16. Re: Ban rock music by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Surprisingly, everyone in my weekly D&D group plays D&D.

  17. Fortnite wasn't really on my radar until... by DigitalSorceress · · Score: 2

    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....

    --

    The Digital Sorceress
    1. Re:Fortnite wasn't really on my radar until... by Lanthanide · · Score: 2

      Watch this video and learn how Fortnite is deliberately designed to be addictive and get children to spend money: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      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.

  18. lets just try this one out. by nimbius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    drug deaths per year in the UK: 247 in 2015 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34...

    alcohol deaths per year in the UK: 5,843 deaths in 2017 https://www.independent.co.uk/...

    number of kids having died from the fortnight dance: none.

    *the total count of entitled celebrity pseudo-rulers riding the coat-tails of an increasingly wasteful and arrogant theatrical monarchy into the apocalypse of Brexit remains uncounted, yet is at least 1.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:lets just try this one out. by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:lets just try this one out. by gweihir · · Score: 1

      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.!

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    3. Re:lets just try this one out. by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      He said Fortnight was MORE ADDICTIVE than alcohol or drugs, not MORE DEADLY.

  19. Hear ye hear ye by elainerd · · Score: 1

    The King fell ill, after eight helpings of grape marmalade. Marmalade is now banned from court.

    --
    Faith: Belief in Truth. Superstition: Belief in Falsehood.
  20. Different worlds by mrspoonsi · · Score: 1

    The Prince did not grow up on a housing estate, where in the past (pre-social network, or games) the entertainment was hanging around on a street corner getting up to no good. There is many a household where the parents are happy that the children entertained in the house, rather than doing drugs on the street...There is also a reason why violent crime has dropped in the recent years, less youths hanging around... The average Joe does not have entertainments like weekly international travel, fancy cars, helicopters, butlers and personal chefs...they have games like fortnite to take away the disappointment of daily existence.

    1. Re:Different worlds by Lanthanide · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:Different worlds by mrspoonsi · · Score: 1

      As apposed to a football club getting its younger fans 'addicted' into spending money on match tickets? At the end of the day, the parents are in charge of childrens finances, it is the parents choice if they can put money in the game. As children become young adults, they might have their own bank card, but it is only money which is in their own account. If they have a part time-job then it is money they earned, who is to say they cannot waste it on some game?

    3. Re:Different worlds by Lanthanide · · Score: 1

      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?...

    4. Re:Different worlds by Lanthanide · · Score: 1

      The majority of people playing Fortnite are not legal adults, which is the game we are discussing.

    5. Re:Different worlds by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

      Children aren't using THEIR credit cards to purchase all of this crap.

      If parents are so damned concerned about it, quit funding the addiction.

  21. Re:Ban everything we don't like. by Immerman · · Score: 1

    >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/...

    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.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  22. Re:Ban rock music by lgw · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  23. Re:Inbred weirdo talked to a guy at YMCA by Immerman · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  24. Ban fun things that I don't like by nwaack · · Score: 2

    Says the guy who can have basically anything he wants.

    1. Re:Ban fun things that I don't like by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:Ban fun things that I don't like by Lanthanide · · 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.

  25. Prince Harry Sez by ChoGGi · · Score: 1

    social media is more addictive then crack or meth, and I'm sure he has a wealth of experience with all three.

  26. Ban the Monarchy! by King_TJ · · Score: 4, 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.

    1. Re:Ban the Monarchy! by Lanthanide · · Score: 1, 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?...

    2. Re:Ban the Monarchy! by King_TJ · · Score: 1

      If you assume that one of the goals for raising kids is for them to become productive members of society? Then yes, such claims as a video game "damaging childrens' education" qualifies in spades as an economic drain!

  27. Wow speaks volumes by wolfheart111 · · Score: 1

    On how this man thinks, kinda scary.

    --
    [($)]
    1. Re:Wow speaks volumes by Lanthanide · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Illegal drugs don't have multinational companies pushing them on children. Fortnite does.

    2. Re:Wow speaks volumes by ffkom · · Score: 1

      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.

  28. Re:Ban everything we don't like. by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    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.

  29. Fortnite is deliberately designed to be addictive by Lanthanide · · 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?...

  30. Re:Inbred weirdo talked to a guy at YMCA by GoTeam · · Score: 1

    I'd bet the A stands for Association, but I'm not sure. I don't have a device where I can search for that kind of stuff...

  31. how royalty came to be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Origin of royalty:
    first there were farmers who worked on fields and fed animals - it was/is very hard work. Then some asshole got ingenious idea - hey wait a minute - why should i work so much if i can simply go and kill some farmers and the rest will be in great fear and will give me all i want. Many assholes did the same and they begin fighting among themselves too. In the end the 'best asshole' was declared king and thus the 'elite royalty' was born. So in short - kings are just common bandits who were lucky to be left standing after the slaughter.

    After some time passed the 'elite asshole' though to himself: why should i have to fight so much, this is too tiresome not to mention dangerous. Its better to just create a nice power structure, me on top with each link having subordinates who do their bidding. Its much cleaner and stable system. In time every such power structure degenerates and starts smelling awful - then it collapses and is restarted. Everything that happened in human 'history' is just a variation on this theme - nothing original or new really.

    Today you have 'rich assholes' who again don't do any useful work but just extort everyone else to do their bidding. There were some attempts at 'communism' but again nothing really new - again there were assholes who took all the power and everything was just a fairy tale full of lies. 'Humanity', it never really changes - same methods - different 'names'.

    1. Re: how royalty came to be by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      You left out the part where the surviving bandits fucked each other and gave birth to inbred descendents like Harry.

  32. Don't ban it, push it by budsetr · · Score: 1

    If playing a game involving massive interaction, problem solving, and math skills is sooooo addictive shouldn't we use that to treat other addictions?

  33. The same was said about alot of things. by Higaran · · Score: 2

    Doom, World of Warcraft, and hell I think even Bejeweled and Farmville probably make the same list. Every year, or every other year people are crying the same thing about what ever the new hot game is out there.

    1. Re:The same was said about alot of things. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      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.

  34. Like father, like son by Jahoda · · Score: 1

    Well, when your dad is Prince Homeopathy, and a guy who has great quotes like as “the Westernized world has become far too firmly framed by a mechanistic approach to science.”, or whatever the hell that means (it's towards the last third of the article which details the general buffonery he's been known for for 45 years), then it really should come as a surprise if the Prince opens his mouth and says the kind of dumb shit that runs in his family.

    Although.... he isn't wrong about social media, so, six of one half dozen of the other I guess.

  35. Re:Oh jeez... by youngone · · Score: 3, 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.

  36. Applies to other things too by hawguy · · Score: 1

    "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.

  37. Surprise by argStyopa · · Score: 2

    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?

    --
    -Styopa
  38. The UNKNOWN source by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:The UNKNOWN source by gweihir · · Score: 1

      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...

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  39. Re:Fortnite is deliberately designed to be addicti by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 2

    If you're going from that angle, it's unfair to single out Fortnite. Many games now use similar monetization mechanics including mechanics borrowed from gambling. And mobile games have done so for much longer than PC games. Banning Fortnite will not solve this problem and it's incredibly naive and short-sighted to think something else won't appear that's the same or even worse (and in fact it probably already has).

  40. Talking to mental health experts... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

    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....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  41. Re: Ban rock music by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    My D&D group doesn't. They play Pathfinder.

  42. He has not thought this through by gweihir · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:He has not thought this through by Lanthanide · · Score: 1

      Children are banned from casinos until they turn 18. Are you suggesting that that is a bad law that should be repealed?

    2. Re:He has not thought this through by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Are you seriously suggesting that making a physical location off-limits that is definitely and without doubt dedicated to gambling is the same as banning a specific game?

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    3. Re:He has not thought this through by Lanthanide · · Score: 1

      So you think it is appropriate for children to be banned from gambling in a casino, but you don't think any restrictions at all need to be considered if children are gambling on phones in a game that uses all of the existing psychology tricks to encourage gambling - and more - to extract money from them.

      Just so we're clear.

    4. Re:He has not thought this through by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Just so we're clear.

      Not at all. You are intentionally confusing the issue and lying about what I said. I find that dishonest and repulsive.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    5. Re:He has not thought this through by gweihir · · Score: 1

      _That_ I have no problem with. But outlawing loot-boxes and "banning Fortnite" are two different things. Loot-boxes should either be adult-only or, better, subject to a casino-license and availability only in special, adult-only locations like regular gambling.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  43. Re:Blame the Parents by gweihir · · Score: 1

    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 again and sit in on these "debates" looking sternly. (That is if she is allowed to do so.)

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  44. Try getting your facts straight first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So you want random dictators for life...

    That's not how a constitutional monarchy works, and not how the monarchy in the UK works.

    Their role is ceremonial and ambassadorial, and brings with it a lot of benefits in addition to the billions in tourist dollars they help bring in. Things like unifying otherwise divergent interests in the nation, playing a non-political (in US terms, non-partisan) role in representing the nation abroad, playing a key role in bringing the commonwealth together which provides real political value (stability, influence) and economic value (trade, and, again, stability).

    Their role has nothing to do with passing or enforcing laws beyond the purely ceremonial--not exactly the makings of a dictatorship.

    1. Re:Try getting your facts straight first by cdsparrow · · Score: 1

      Well technically parliament only exists by royal decree does it not? At any time the monarch could desolve parliament and start issueing edicts I believe. And it would not surprise me if the queen decided to issue an edict over the brexit stuff since nobody else has the balls to make a public decision on it.

    2. Re:Try getting your facts straight first by Pseudonym · · Score: 2

      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 the case since 1215.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    3. Re:Try getting your facts straight first by tsstahl · · Score: 1

      This has been the case since 1215.

      Typical American response: since lunch?

  45. You're going at it the wrong way by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Trump and the bulk of our government are all members of Royalty. We just don't call them that, but they got where they got because of enormous amounts of money and connections given to them by their parents; e.g. hereditary. Also they consistently argue that they're ordained by God (e.g. prosperity gospel); e.g. divine right of kings.

    A ruling class by any name would oppress as much.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:You're going at it the wrong way by sjames · · Score: 1

      If only I had mod points. ^mod parent up^

  46. Re:Fortnite is deliberately designed to be addicti by gweihir · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  47. Re:Fortnite is deliberately designed to be addicti by Lanthanide · · Score: 1

    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.

  48. Re:Inbred weirdo talked to a guy at YMCA by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Argggh, a bunch of religious fanatics! Humanity does so love its collective stupidity it enshrines it in associations like these.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  49. The UK is becoming a dystopian hellhole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They seem so friendly and proper on the outside, but the more you get to know the Brits, the more you realize how medieval they are in their thinking. Be it their government or the average citizen. If I had to pick the first-world country most likely to bring back witch hunts, it's the UK. It's really unsettling.

  50. Ban the ban by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We should be building a world where instead of banning âoebadâ things, we elected the ones that really brings realistic alternatives. But no, we just vote for morons with hating tastes matches ours

  51. Re:Ban rock music by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
  52. Everything old is new... by hiroshimarrow · · 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."

    1. Re:Everything old is new... by sysrammer · · Score: 2

      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."

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  53. Re:Inbred weirdo talked to a guy at YMCA by Immerman · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  54. Re: Ban rock music by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    At least most people who 'do D&D' are using a little math, logic, a lot of creativity and are playing in a social setting.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  55. Re:Fortnite is deliberately designed to be addicti by Lanthanide · · Score: 1

    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.

  56. Re:Blame the Parents by Lanthanide · · Score: 1

    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 stupid thoughtless comments that have predominated so far.

    That's all.

  57. The US got free from by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    The taxes, "advice" and rules of a UK tyranny.
    In the US the people have the freedom to enjoy what they want in their own "household".
    The pursuit of Happiness.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  58. Would his lordship like sugar by Snufu · · Score: 2

    with that teabagging?

  59. Re:Ban everything we don't like. by Hylandr · · Score: 1

    Austin?

    --
    ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
  60. Flip side of argument by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    When the product that the psychologist designed is available... on expensive hardware that is required to play and easily monitored/controlled by parents...

    vs. a product that requires only $5 and a sketchy friend with a lot of ziplock bags.

    I know which choice I'm putting MY money on...

    Fortnite brought in $2.4 billion

    Aww, what a cute little revere stream you have built up! How cute!!

    Compared that is to the $400 BILLION dollars in global drug trade. That figure is from 1998. Do you think that number to be higher, or lower now?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Flip side of argument by Lanthanide · · Score: 1

      I simply said which enterprise I would invest in - the psychologist, not the chemist.

      You need more than $5 and ziplock bags to make addictive drugs created by a chemist.

  61. Re:Ban rock music by Zorro · · Score: 1

    YES! Ban Fox Hunting!

  62. Charles should be proud by biggaijin · · Score: 1

    Charles's son Harry is obviously a chip off the old block, and is just as shallow and ignorant as his father. And, just as happy to offer his royal opinion on things about which he knows little.

  63. Re:Fortnite is deliberately designed to be addicti by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Casinos are different: That is a physical location dedicated to gambling, and no uncertainty about it. There can be one additional step before banning things: Make the game purchase-only for adults. Sure, enterprising kids will still get access, but that is the price of freedom. You cannot have safety and freedom at the same time. And sacrificing freedom has time and again proven to be an extremely bad idea.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  64. Re:Inbred weirdo talked to a guy at YMCA by gweihir · · Score: 1

    I am an atheist and I do rape and murder as much as I want! Which is not at all. (I know I am boring.)

    If I look at certain groups of priests on the other hand that have a preference for raping children and a lot of them....
    To be fair, in earlier times the same priests would have been killing (or ordered the killing of) witches, blasphemers and such. It is only natural for them to seek other entertainment now.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  65. Re:Fortnite is deliberately designed to be addicti by DogDude · · Score: 1

    I don't watch videos. If it's a well thought out idea, it should be written down. Videos, by definition, are designed to detract from whatever thing you're trying yo say.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  66. Re:Fortnite is deliberately designed to be addicti by Lanthanide · · Score: 1

    Oh well, your loss then. I didn't make the video so I have no control over whether it's content is written down or not.

    Also the video is actually showing stuff on screen and talking about it. So a written transcript would be far less useful than a video for this topic.

  67. Re:Fortnite is deliberately designed to be addicti by Lanthanide · · Score: 1

    You can also regulate things. The regulations can include banning of components or concepts without banning the overall product, as well as putting restrictions on components or concepts without banning the overall product.

  68. All Hail his highness Donald the First by ghoul · · Score: 1

    and Crown Princess Ivanka

    --
    **Life is too short to be serious**
  69. Republic to monarchy by Pseudonymus+Bosch · · Score: 2

    And Spain, Mexico, Dominican Republic, Venice, Florence (I'd say all the Italian republics but for San Marino), Athens, Manchukuo. And if you admit hereditary republics as monarchies, North Korea, Syria, Cuba, and maybe the United States, India, Pakistan, Equatorial Guinea.

    --
    __
    Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
    GW Bu
  70. Better Better Idea by ghoul · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    **Life is too short to be serious**
    1. Re:Better Better Idea by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Wait I just realized Fortnite is an Eugenics conspiracy.

      All of modern society is a eugenics conspiracy, to judge by the birth rates around the globe.

  71. Re: Ban rock music by Highdude702 · · Score: 2

    there is a Dick and Denial group?

    You know, Asking for a friend..

  72. Re:Blame the Parents by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    " Knife crime rising (still no where near gun level in America before you start) "

    This is due to the fact that you all don't have any Scary Black Military Style Assault Knives with extended grip !
    Once you get your hands on one of those beauties, you'll be overwhelmed with the desire to go knife up a bus full of Nuns . . . . .

  73. That's not how it works by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    people are encouraged to have kiddos so the ruling class can use them as labor, pawns, toys and soldiers. We won't be banning anyone from having kids. We'll ban them from doing things that don't benefit, enrich and amuse the top 1%. Like we always have. Even while those 1%ers indulge themselves in the very things they banned, like they always have.

    You'd think after well over 2000 years of record history we'd have figured this shit out... Doomed to repeat it I guess.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:That's not how it works by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      People are encouraged to have children because sex is so pleasurable.

      I know, you're so doctrinaire you probably never though of that.

    2. Re: That's not how it works by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that you wantto argue... but you've got nothing to argue with. I suppose I can sympathize... but just so you know, it's very clear that you've got "issues" and are stupid.

  74. ban the royalty by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    Royalty shouldn't be allowed. Where is the benefit of having it in your country? It's created to addict, an addiction to keep you subservient to another human 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. The stupid need to be ruled by a dynasty is more addictive than alcohol and drugs.

  75. Re:Ban everything we don't like. by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

    and they haven't priced in the future value of the hydrocarbons wasted.

    The hydrocarbons are stored. Hopefully in a stable landfill.

    A few hundred years from now, the people from the present time who are cursed will be the tools who clamored for high-temperature trash incinerators. There will be a sharp cutoff in landfill value for the people of the future strip mining them for resources. Landfills from after the 'greens' came to power, the resources stopped being stored and were simply destroyed will be of less value.

  76. Re:"more addictive than drugs or alcohol" -BS by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

    Are you going to ban alcohol, tobacco, sugar, caffeine, pornography, BBC, sex, and many other potentially addictive things, Harry?

    Well, if he just bans the BBC, then the public's use of the others in that list as a palliative self-medicating response to the BBC must surely decline.

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  77. wrong tree by Tom · · Score: 1

    Barking up the wrong tree much?

    What we do need is a ban on exploitative capitalism. There, I've said it, cue the "omg communist" scare trolls.

    But here's the thing: When making $$$ is the only purpose of anything, then there's nothing wrong with predatory game design, where you intentionally build in addiction using psychologists alongside coders. And it's not just Fortnite, it is almost every mobile game for the past years. More and more desktop games. And most of social media.

    We could try to stem the flood with more regulations, forbidding certain titles, oversight committees, court cases, sending SWAT teams into game development studios and Facebook's headquarters and basically re-creating the War on Drugs because that worked so well and nobody has seen any drugs since the 90s and all the drug lords are impoverished today...

    Or we could see the root cause and that's our unhealthy fixation on $$$ and our total neglect of everything else that makes a human and a society. If you are left-wing, you see in the environment and the influence of corporations on politics how this is wrong. If you are right-wing, you see in the falling apart of families, the disappearance of values from society and politics and the ever-expanding government control how that is wrong.

    But we're too busy arguing over Clintons e-mails or Trumps hair-style to see that under it all we're really the same - except for the 0.1% of winners who're taking our humanity and turning it into profits. The makers of Fortnite are really the low-end of that bunch. And slowly we're all turning into such people because economic pressure makes sure that you, too, think more and more about money and less and less about other values.

    You guys all didn't get what the zombie apocalypse really is about. Hint: The zombie virus is a metaphor.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:wrong tree by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Interesting post.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  78. Re:Inbred weirdo talked to a guy at YMCA by jimbo · · Score: 1

    Sounds about right. He probably assumed it stood for Afghanistan.

  79. They said the same thing about EQ, WOW, etc. by Monolyth · · Score: 1

    Anytime a game reaches a certain number of concurrent players / accounts everyone starts claiming game addiction doom and gloom. Fortnite is simply the latest incarnation of this phenomenon. People will eventually tire of it's features and community, just like they have with any other largely populated game. Epic will eventually jump the shark and start allowing pizza delivery through an in-game feature and that will signal it's decline. :)

  80. Real takeaway by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

    The real information here is that Prince Harry sucks at Fortnite and is a whiner. The end, move along.

    --
    This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
  81. Re:Inbred weirdo talked to a guy at YMCA by Immerman · · Score: 1

    I'm not an atheist, but that was rather my point. What exactly are we to think about people that seem to think that number should be far higher? How many would-be monsters in the world rein themselves in only because of their fear or love of God?

    Or are they simply so well indoctrinated that they never bother to actually ask themselves the question, and simply assume that they would be monsters without their chains?

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  82. I see game addiction all the time by cjonslashdot · · Score: 1

    It is not too different from drug addiction. People playing hours at a time, while their real life slips away. They could be learning a language, or an instrument, or a working toward a degree, or reading books that broaden their knowledge and horizons, but instead they are glued to a virtual world that leaves them with nothing except for memories of non-real experiences. It is not too different from masturbating all day.

  83. Stupid. by Hallux-F-Sinister · · Score: 1

    Might as well also ban fun.

    Fun activities tend to be done more than not fun ones. It's a plain, simple fact of nature. For example:

    On balance, people fuck more than they get root canals. Root canals are actually really good for you; fucking, by contrast, can have a lot of unintended and unpleasant side effects, that last for days, months, or years beyond the handful of minutes of pleasure that can be derived from such an activity as sex. You see, if you have a tooth in your mouth, (your own, obviously, not someone else's... why do you even have that in your mouth?!? Spit it out!) that has decayed to the point that the root is compromised, and has become infected with bacteria, the tooth can't really be saved at that point without a root canal.

    A root canal is essential under these circumstances because without one, the tooth can suppurate, resulting in inflammation so painful it interferes with activities of daily life. Allowed to continue to fester, the pocket of bacteria can erode into the jaw bone, spread throughout the body, causing a condition known as sepsis, or septic-shock, in which a previously sequestered bacterial infection suddenly gets direct access to the blood stream. It is, I understand, a horrible way to die. A cursory internet search turned up this, (https://www.new-horizons-dental.com/blog/post/top-5-reasons-not-to-delay-getting-a-root-canal.html) list of reasons NOT to put off getting a necessary root canal. If you actually NEED one, they are literally lifesavers.

    By contrast, fucking, while it can be SUPER fun, can lead to the spread of sexually transmitted infections, including herpes, gonorrhea, hepatitis, genital warts, the dreaded human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV for short, and worst of all, a parasitic infection that men can spread to women that causes their abdomens to swell up, resulting in bouts of insanity, cravings for strange foods and food combinations, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, accompanied by sudden weight gain that goes on literally for months, generally culminating in a bloody, screaming fit which can last between 15 minutes and over a day, in which the parasite is expelled from the body amid agony on the part of the infected woman. The nightmare doesn't end there, though. The end result is often extremely expensive, for both the woman AND the man who infected her through sexual contact. And all this assumes she doesn't at any point complain that the activity in which she became infected was non-consensual, the result of coercion, or the threat or use of force. Should this occur, the man can find himself locked in a giant cage with other men who are believed to be incapable of adhering to broader society's rules.

    Either way, the adventure in parasitism doesn't end there. The parasite, shortly after being expelled, latches onto the chest of the victim whose body it has just burst forth from, and continues to drain her of precious nutrients and minerals. While incubating inside her, the parasite effectively rewires her brain causing her to care for, and even be willing to kill or die if necessary, to protect this screaming, demanding, smelly, selfish little beast. To quote world-famous physician Gregory House: Many women learn to embrace this parasite... name it, dress it up in tiny clothes, arrange playdates with other parasites...

    Fucking, as an activity, can be conclusively shown, I believe, to be FAR more dangerous and detrimental for all concerned, than an allegedly addictive video game. BAN that, I say, PARTICULARLY among people who are basically parasites themselves, such as members of so-called "royal" families! MAYBE, with a little luck, we can put a STOP to that happening, and what a wonderful world it would be.

    --
    Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
  84. Re: There.s no such thing as a constitutional mona by Type44Q · · Score: 1

    I'm waiting for Pseudo the Torie Toadie to comment...

  85. Re:Inbred weirdo talked to a guy at YMCA by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Available evidence suggests that fear of punishment does have no effects on "monsters", whether it is worldly punishment or "fear of God". From my observation that claim is just part of the dishonest sales-pitch used by may religions: They claim to be the source of morality, when a) that is not true in the least and b) their morality is usually quite broken.

    There is also evidence that atheists are more moral, because unlike the religious, they do not think that they have that aspect of their lives already covered by being religious.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  86. I should add by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    the American ruling class long since figured out that calling themselves Kings and Queens was just painting a big bullseye on their backs. This way they've got all the advantages and none of the downsides.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  87. Maybe the Duke of Cuckex by cptawesome · · Score: 1

    should mind his own damn business. I bet that was wifey's idea.

  88. Re:Fortnite is deliberately designed to be addicti by gweihir · · Score: 1

    The problem is that for all content like games, movies, books, the decision is quite fuzzy and that invites misuse and censorship. For a casino, there is nothing fuzzy.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  89. Re: Ban rock music by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    and coffee

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  90. Are you kidding? by fuzzyf · · Score: 1

    Social media makes it much easier to control the masses.
    People in power want nothing more than everyone being cataloged and analyzed, ready to be influenced by targeted campaigns for said people in power.

  91. Now we see the violence inherent in the system by MrSavage · · Score: 1

    Help! Help! I'm being oppressed! I'm being oppressed!