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.

47 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 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});
    2. 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."
    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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...
  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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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".

  3. 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?

  4. well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I didn't vote for him

  5. 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..

  6. 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 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.

    3. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. 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?

  11. 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
  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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?...

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. 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
  22. 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).

  23. 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/
  24. 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
  25. Would his lordship like sugar by Snufu · · Score: 2

    with that teabagging?

  26. 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
  27. 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**
  28. Re: Ban rock music by Highdude702 · · Score: 2

    there is a Dick and Denial group?

    You know, Asking for a friend..

  29. 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});