Gamer Sues for his Addiction

That is extremely interesting. Thanks for posting.

Jane in CT

Totally and completely ABSURD.

Just for once, let's take responsibility for our OWN actions, rather than blame others and then file suit.

-Tory

Poor guy... Seems he's also making accusations about the GM's "real" motives with regard to his being banned from Lineage II.

I will pray that he finds his way here and gets the healing he needs and deserves from his addiction.

Thanks for sharing.

Thanks for posting this. I am posting the hard-copy here, so we don't loose it.

Gamer Sues NCsoft For 'Addiction' to Lineage IIBy: Chloe Albanesius

Serious gamers can spend hours in front of their favorite games, but would they consider themselves addicts? Craig Smallwood certainly does, and he has sued NCsoft, maker of Lineage II, for failing to warn him and other users that the game is highly addictive.

Hawaii-resident Smallwood played Lineage II for more than 20,000 hours between 2004 and 2009, during which time he became "psychologically dependent and addicted" to the game, according to court filings posted by Wired.

NCsoft, however, "never gave [Smallwood] any notice or warning of the danger of psychological dependence or addiction from continued play," according to the case.

A Hawaii judge recently threw out some of Smallwood's claims, but refused to dismiss the entire case, and let it proceed on claims of negligence, gross negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

It appears that Smallwood's case centers not only on his alleged addiction to Lineage II but on NCsoft's marketing strategy.

According to Smallwood, he was locked out Lineage II in September 2009, despite having paid for an additional 1.5 months of game play. A month later, NCsoft said it locked Smallwood out because he had participated in "an elaborate scheme to create real money transfers." Smallwood denied the charges, and said NCsoft's real motive was to get users locked out of Lineage II so they would upgrade to its new release, Aion.

Smallwood also accused game moderators, known as Game Masters, of not effectively policing Lineage II, and instating "banning purges" intended to "promote Aion and increase their profits."

NCsoft did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but in court documents, the company confirmed that Smallwood was locked out of his multiple accounts over allegations of real money transfers, which are prohibited by the game's terms of service.

Apparently the new game, Aion, doesn't do it for Smallwood. He said "he continues to this day to have a compulsive urge and need to play Lineage II." He has also suffered "extreme and serious emotional distress and depression, he has been unable to function independently, he has suffered psychological trauma, he was hospitalized, and he requires treatment and therapy three times a week," court documents said.

This is definitely an extreme case of the "blame the company" period. :( I agree, he needs to take responsibility for himself. Maybe he'll stay away from the game during this whole phase and it'll do him some good, haha.

I want to see how this turns out. I have a feeling he'll lose, but stranger things have happened.

I have to agree with Ruya and Tory - and lawyers who handle cases like this make me crazy.

I think the gaming companies need to take responsibility for their part in this (and they DO have a part). The gaming companies in Korea are forced to make referrals to professionals, when their gamers ask for it. The UK has a tax on the games sold there, to provide help for those in need. The alcohol industry has the Tavern League, which provides safety measures that every bar/inn has to abide by. They can be held responsible if their patrons drink too much. I think the gaming industry as a whole, needs to provide some time of support to gamers, when help is needed.

.

Sorry, Tory and Ruya and Ariadne. This issue has nothing or at least very little to do with taking personal responsibility. It's not a moral issue. It's a practical one. This is one important way, in addition to laws and regulations and rules, that our society keeps companies from knowingly, secretly marketing products and services that are dangerous but that no one or almost no one could reasonably be expected to know are dangerous in advance. Often lawsuits like this prompt regulation that accomplishes the same goal, which is to keep companies from killing us. Even if no regulation eventuates, the knowledge that they are likely to be sued if they treat us like expendable lab rats is somewhat, although not perfectly effective at preventing such behavior. One man's opinion. McPhee

ahahahaha that's ridiculous!

thanks you really made my day

it's like lifelong smokers suing tobacco companies, come on! :D

I agree that personal responsibility is key, but corporations have a responsibility to society and consumers.

It is why we have such things as environmental laws.

Tobacco companies have a responsibility when they add toxic chemicals to tobacco that cause addiction.

I think game companies should be sued for not having warning's on games, especailly if they make them addictive on purpose. Drug's from pharmacey's have warning's, cig's, hot coffee, Alchohal, glues, etc.... I don't agree with this case, but that's not the point of my arguement. However I do think companies are making these games addictive on purpose and should be held accountable for that. Kids and parents should know the dangers of the product. Period.

Here's a drug that kids are getting their hands on with easy access. And nobody is telling them how it could very realistically ruin their lives. Do any of you here deny that you would have thought twice about a game or even let your addiction get as far as it did if you were at least informed of the product to some extent? Back when you were 8 and playing mario? Do you think you would have thought differently just knowing that? Now you are struggling the rest of your lives for some stupid addiction to a fake world. It's about being informed.

Companies should be held accountable for their action's on ruining people's lives. It's one thing to warn you of the dangers, it's another thing to act like nothing you are doing is wrong and know it is. I refer to the post earlier as a prime example. THEY KNOW they are making us addict's. They do it anyway for money. What's the problem with making them be honest about it?

-khif

No need to be sorry McPhee - i understand your point about a mechanism for social change and corporate responsibility/accountability - I totally and 100% get that and support that. However, I've also got a ladder in my garage with THIRTEEN different warning stickers resulting from lawsuits. Its the slippery slope and the lawyers that win in the end that drives me crazy. You can't deny that part of it. It's certainly the part that makes me *sigh*.

Oh ********** yeah, sue them people.

I mean didn't we just have an article stating that the companies were purposefully making games addicting, and that they had to make us addicted and keep us addicted etc, etc, even though it was a danger to my health? Even my Vitamin C pills have to put the side effects down on the label!!!!!

Even a please play responsibly like the drinking commercials would be nice! But there's nothing like that!

Or how about.."Warning, some scientific evidence suggests that playing video games may cause symptoms of depression, suicidal tendencies, insomnia, obesity, bone loss, carpel tunnel, early menopause, premature death, premature ejaculation, emotional distress, increased water retention, schizophrenia, illusions of grandeur, eye trouble, migraines, AIDS!, blindness, ear trouble, seizures, panic attacks, anxiety, multiple personalties, high blood pressure, chest pain, diabetes, nausea, bloating, Chronic Fatigue, Alzheimer's, foot fungus, selective mutism, and long hours of "therapy" with a freak named Skopos. Rated E for everyone.

Gaming companies will take no responsiblity until they are FORCED to. I have already been told that by several of them.

It's something of a puzzle to me how anyone who is aware of the costs of excessive gaming would not support some form of game controls, whether through laws or regulatoins or liability claims. The explanation may be the effectiveness of the public relations campaign mounted by big insurance, tobacco and other corporations to convince people that it is somehow a bad thing to sue a large and wealthy corporation that intentionally and secretly sold you something that would kill or injure you.

Warning labels that advise you not to, say, operate a pistol while aiming it at your forehead make good comedy, certainly. But it's hard for me to see exactly how we are hurt, individually or as a group, when we attempt to keep big companies from selling us stuff that they know is bad for us when few if any of us could be expected to make that determination on our own. It's not hard at all to see why insurers and the makers of cigarettes and other destructive products see it that way, of course. They want to make more money by selling stuff that harms the purchasers.

But how is somebody who decides to play a few rounds of some online game supposed to know that it has been intentionally, skillfully and effectively designed to cause them to uncontrollably play it until they lose their job, family, health and self-respect? This is exactly what is happening, of course, as everybody reading this knows very well. McPhee

The two things that suprise me most about the article are:

1 That a gaming company has not been sued for this reason sooner.

2 That the game being sued over was not WoW.

I too am very interested in how this might turn out. If any part of this lawsuit holds up and the gaming company has to pay out on it, then I think the floodgates might just open up on lawsuits against gaming companies.

Lineage has been around a lot longer than WOW.

In the spirit of debate only, and IMHO, not being supportive of certain damage tort claims like this for slippery slope reasons is not the same as not supporting laws and regulations on gaming , nor does it mean someone has been successfully marketed to by big business. I challenge you to think about how the disclosure of nutritional information and calorie counts has changed the behavior of AmericanaEU(tm)s who eat junk food, or even eat it addictively, for example. (And I personally do appreciate and like having that information btw). Would warning labels on the burger wrapper help? Do they hurt? aEU" I donaEU(tm)t think so aEU" except maybe in the form of some inflated prices, but I donaEU(tm)t have to buy that stuff anyway, and itaEU(tm)s the price of doing business aEU" I get that.

Regarding how is somebody who decides to play a few rounds of some online game supposed to know that it has been intentionally, skillfully and effectively designed to cause them to uncontrollably play - should we put a warning label on Las Vegas, maybe the slot or poker machines? What if you knew beforehand that a game aEU~mightaEU(tm) be addictive aEU" and it said it on the label. Would you as a new player change your mind if you had this information in advance? Perhaps parents might not by a game for their kids, and that would be a good thing, but I doubt most adults would change their minds. Have violence ratings on video games changed behavior (en masse I mean) or simply prevented lawsuits?

I would say that one of the foundation requirements for any capitalistic society is open and transparent information; how else can people make 'rational' decisions. Whether it be warnings on music, food, or a pack of smokes; it's only fair that people know the content inside.

While the data is still out on whether simply posting nutrition on menus as they do now by itself make a difference, what is not in doubt is that people when educated can use that information to make good choices. Hence, if you have no idea how many calories you're supposed to eat in a day,what does knowing that a burger has 600 calories mean.

Just like with games, if no one even understands gaming addiction, what does it help to know that game X might cause it.

And I have to say, at the movies yesterday I was already to buy a soft pretzle until I saw it was 550 calories. WoW

Joe

Maybe this video gamer will receive a settlement. He sounds pretty damaged by addiction. The game company says that he participated in a scheme to try to transfer real money. If he did, maybe it was between "his multiple accounts," or maybe not, but it sounds like he may have broken some rules. It will be interesting to see how it all turns out.

Regarding thoughts that warnings on video games are futile- well at least the warnings would be there, though, just as they are on cigarettes. Video game addiction is serious, and similar to the damages that gambling addiction causes. People could be given a description with warnings about the risk of gambling addiction when they enter a casino, track, or other venue. That could be required, and I think it should be.

Serious addiction is a living hell and people should be made aware of the risk of it.

Serena

The point isn't that the warning is supposed to make you not play. It supposed to make you aware of the fact it's addicting. That's all. Free will is free will. People will always do whatever they want. At least we wouldn't have people coming in here saying "I never knew, now I feel stupid.". At least they would know, and as anybody who grew up in the 80's know's. "Knowing is half the battle."

Just to be clear - i wasn't meaning to object to warning lables, just the slippery slope of tort damage suits, and where they seem to end up. I'm always up for open information.

Just a reminder that this is an outside issue, and we do not take a position on what is happening with this gamer.

Good point, bgh. I should have said that my personal opinion and statements about this topic and this gamer are not directly affiliated with or officially endorsed by OLGA/OLGA-Anon. Does that about cover it? I had the impression that the policy or doctrine or tradition is that the group won't take a stand as a group on outside issues. Surely that doesn't mean that we can't as individuals? Or perhaps I am wrong about that.

Meanwhile, of course there should be labels on games warning about addiction. There are already labels rating games on violence and language and sexual content.

There should be investigations of exactly what addictive components the game makers are including in the games. And if the game makers are found to be knowingly inducing addiction, they should be held liable for it.

If these proposed changes somehow begin to destroy individual responsibility and the foundations of Western society, we can change them back the way they were before.

Anything I have said is my personal opinion, not that of OLGA/OLG-Anon.