When I used to work at a company that shipped games in South Korea and China, we'd occasionally get emails from our Korean or Chinese partners discussing the death of a player who had spent 36 hours or something close to that gaming and ended up dying of a stroke or heart-attack. Those discussions would, of course, be framed around public relations and preventing additional regulation (or, in the case of China, keeping the Party from coming down on the offending game/company with the full power of a state perfectly happy to execute billionaires and other business elites), but I always found myself wondering why we didn't shut players down for half an hour after six hours of play and an hour after 12 in 24 hours. Players just shouldn't be playing that much.
Yes, although it is generally a matter of worsening pre-existing issues. Around 36 hours you start to see an increase in inflammation, which can interact with existing hypertension or vascular blockages.
The goal is to get someone to go do something else for a little while so that their body and/or mind can realize that it is tired, not to create an oppositional relationship where you tell them "big brother says don't play games". That kind of oppositional relationship is only likely to make someone resentful of the restriction. Just getting up and moving a bit can make a big difference. I'm not trying to tell someone what behavior is virtuous - I just don't want to help kill them.
we’d occasionally get emails from our Korean or Chinese partners discussing the death of a player who had spent 36 hours or something close to that gaming and ended up dying of a stroke or heart-attack.
I seriously doubt these stories. For one I doubt it's physically possible, you'd be unable to actually play the game long before a stroke or heart attack could be induced purely by neglecting all your other needs, if that's even a thing that happens. Hunger alone makes it hard to keep focus, especially after skipping multiple meals.
For two I've literally only heard these stories come out of China, Korea, and maybe Japan. If it was an actual thing it would happen anywhere. It sounds more like a myth spread by parents in those countries afraid of video games.
If anything close to that has actually happened, there had to have been a ton more factors at play that get ignored in favor of "it was the video games' fault". Similar to how in America people have been quick to attribute shootings to video games as soon as it comes out that the shooter played one.
China and Korea both have a pronounced PC Cafe culture in gaming that is largely missing outside of East Asia (not entirely - I'm aware that part of this is about physical access to computers and that the broader developing world depends on PC Cafes for said access - that said, the centrality of those places to gaming is a cultural hallmark of East Asia, particularly Korea and China). That means that unlike in the US, where, if I spend 24 hours gaming and end up dying, it isn't a public event, the same is not true in a PC Cafe.
PC Cafes serve food, as well as providing computer and internet access. That, along with partner-benefits for accounts playing at PC Cafes, is part of their selling point.
As I noted elsewhere, people don't stay up for 36 hours and suffer a lethal heart-attack or stroke out of the blue - prolonged sleeplessness worsens pre-existing medical issues. Consistent sleeplessness, in particular, is associated with hypertension. Someone who doesn't skip sleep regularly struggles to function at all with that little sleep. Someone with practice may not struggle to function as much, but they also incur a greater health risk,
This is incredibly rare - like, less than once a year rare. The public response is moral panic.
It isn't the video games' fault that someone who likely has other health issues dies while playing them, but in an industry where the central myth is "we build fun", finding out someone died using your product fucking sucks. I don't want my work to be the thing someone uses to kill themselves, whether intentionally or not.
Realistically, there's almost always pre-existing social or mental-health problems for the poor bastard who dies. Even hardcore gamers don't tend towards that kind of extreme. It tends to indicate a behavioral addiction of some kind or some other ongoing crisis...
Which is why I feel just great about loot-boxes becoming standard-issue in online games! What could be better than a nakedly addictive profit-making mechanic? There is absolutely no way that a feature which actively preys on people with mental-health issues, certain disabilities, or addictive personalities could possibly be a disastrous thing!
When I used to work at a company that shipped games in South Korea and China, we'd occasionally get emails from our Korean or Chinese partners discussing the death of a player who had spent 36 hours or something close to that gaming and ended up dying of a stroke or heart-attack. Those discussions would, of course, be framed around public relations and preventing additional regulation (or, in the case of China, keeping the Party from coming down on the offending game/company with the full power of a state perfectly happy to execute billionaires and other business elites), but I always found myself wondering why we didn't shut players down for half an hour after six hours of play and an hour after 12 in 24 hours. Players just shouldn't be playing that much.
Does staying awake for that long appreciably increase your risk of heart attack and stroke?
Yes, although it is generally a matter of worsening pre-existing issues. Around 36 hours you start to see an increase in inflammation, which can interact with existing hypertension or vascular blockages.
It's additional strain on the body, yeah. And sitting for that long, that's just begging for a clot
Not as bad as I'd think. I really shouldn't be paying attention to chud media online.
The goal is to get someone to go do something else for a little while so that their body and/or mind can realize that it is tired, not to create an oppositional relationship where you tell them "big brother says don't play games". That kind of oppositional relationship is only likely to make someone resentful of the restriction. Just getting up and moving a bit can make a big difference. I'm not trying to tell someone what behavior is virtuous - I just don't want to help kill them.
I seriously doubt these stories. For one I doubt it's physically possible, you'd be unable to actually play the game long before a stroke or heart attack could be induced purely by neglecting all your other needs, if that's even a thing that happens. Hunger alone makes it hard to keep focus, especially after skipping multiple meals.
For two I've literally only heard these stories come out of China, Korea, and maybe Japan. If it was an actual thing it would happen anywhere. It sounds more like a myth spread by parents in those countries afraid of video games.
If anything close to that has actually happened, there had to have been a ton more factors at play that get ignored in favor of "it was the video games' fault". Similar to how in America people have been quick to attribute shootings to video games as soon as it comes out that the shooter played one.
So, there are some key things to note here:
deleted by creator
Realistically, there's almost always pre-existing social or mental-health problems for the poor bastard who dies. Even hardcore gamers don't tend towards that kind of extreme. It tends to indicate a behavioral addiction of some kind or some other ongoing crisis...
Which is why I feel just great about loot-boxes becoming standard-issue in online games! What could be better than a nakedly addictive profit-making mechanic? There is absolutely no way that a feature which actively preys on people with mental-health issues, certain disabilities, or addictive personalities could possibly be a disastrous thing!