Former Fortnite UX lead digs into ethical game design
I&#x27;m not sure I can relate to her stance.  It&#x27;s very possible I&#x27;m getting it wrong, but what I understand from what she is saying:<p>- It&#x27;s not that games are addictive, it&#x27;s that addicts are playing games<p>-If you aren&#x27;t an addict then any negative consequences from playing games you experience are your own responsibility<p>- Parents need to balance their children&#x27;s potential for overplaying games with a legitimate need to socialise online (and in games).<p>- Game companies can&#x27;t reasonably opt out of offering &quot;engaging&quot; behaviour because if their competition offers it, they will lose money.<p>It&#x27;s not really the narrative that I expect when I see someone discussing ethics ;-)  It&#x27;s not so much that I <i>disagree</i> with the points from a practical perspective, I just think that they have completely dodged <i>all</i> of the ethical implications of the behaviour of the game companies.<p>It&#x27;s well known that strategies for engaging players can lead to negative consequences.  Even if you can&#x27;t make money unless you let players choose those negative consequences, it doesn&#x27;t really absolve you of the ethical issue.  As described by the person being interviewed, actual &quot;addiction&quot; talks about a compulsion for repeated self-harm.  Even if the player is not an addict, it doesn&#x27;t mean that they don&#x27;t <i>sometimes</i> engage in self-harm.  Giving them that option because there is no other profitable way to create the game, <i>still</i> results in self-harm by your player base.<p>One could write a lot about these kinds of issues, but I find it disturbing that someone apparently interested in discussing ethics in the gaming industry seems to be saying, &quot;Yeah, there are problems, but they totally aren&#x27;t my fault&quot;.