Are video game developers using AI? Players want to know, but the rules are patchy (2026-02-12T11:14:00+05:30)

Thomas Byers, The University of Melbourne and Bjorn Nansen, The University of Melbourne As with all creative industries, generative artificial intelligence (AI) has been infiltrating video games. Non-generative AI has been in the industry long before things like ChatGPT became household names. Video games would contain AI-driven gameplay systems such as matchmaking, non-player character (NPC) behaviour, or iconic fictional AI characters such as SHODAN and GLaDOS. Now, generative AI is being used to produce game assets and speed up development. This is threatening creative jobs and fuelling worries about low-effort releases or “slop”. If you buy a video game today, you may have no reliable way of knowing whether generative AI was used in any part of its development – from the art and voice work to the code and marketing. Should developers disclose it? Since 2023, AI disclosure in video games has gone from non-existent to patchy. It’s arguably more to do with copyright concerns than being transparent with players. A messy baseline Steam, owned by US video game company Valve, is the largest digital storefront for PC games. It’s also the closest thing to a baseline for AI disclosure – simply because it was the first major platform to formalise a position. Amid the rise of AI in 2023, Valve rejected AI-produced games on Steam, citing legal uncertainty and stating the company was “continuing to learn about AI”. By January 2024, Valve formalised its disclosure rules, requiring developers to declare two categories of AI use: pre-generated content (made during development) and live-generated content (created while the game runs). While industry leaders are optimistic about AI’s role in game development, disclosure remains contentious. Tim Sweeney, chief executive of Steam’s competitor Epic Games, mocked Steam’s AI disclosure in late 2025 as being akin to telling players what shampoo developers use. In recent weeks, Valve has narrowed its disclosure rules, clarifying that developers who submit games to their platform only need to report AI if the output is directly experienced by players. This changes what counts as relevant transparency, effectively giving a green light to AI coding and other behind-the-scenes processes. Valve’s focus on player-facing AI does provide consumers with some transparency and the game submissions are checked before release. However, it’s not clear what happens if the makers of a game don’t disclose AI when they should have. The disclosure system also keeps Steam ahead of a legal grey area regarding copyright and generative AI output. If needed, Valve could quickly pull titles affected by AI copyright claims. Some AI models can memorise copyrighted material and reproduce it when prompted, so this is not an entirely hypothetical scenario. AI disclosure on Steam doesn’t have a consistent format – developers simply have a text field where they can write their disclosure in free form. Since it’s not treated as an official tag, consumers also can’t search or filter for AI content when browsing for games in the store. At the time of writing, a search of SteamDB – a third-party catalogue of Steam’s database – lists more than 15,000 games and software with Steam’s AI disclosure label, with no total count available on Steam itself. In response, user watchdogs have stepped in. The Steam curator group AI Check tracks games with AI-generated assets and flags whether developers disclose AI use – and how. Players are largely in the dark Outside Steam, disclosure is inconsistent if not absent. Indie storefront itch.io provides a searchable “AI Generated” tag, but no disclosure is required on game pages. There’s currently no clear AI disclosure on mobile app stores or console storefronts (Nintendo, PlayStation, Xbox), and they’ve been criticised for letting “AI slop” flood their stores. Epic Games Store and another major distribution platform, GOG.com, also lack clear AI disclosures. GOG recently faced backlash for using AI-generated artwork in its own storefront promotion. All this leaves players in the dark, while developers face backlash for AI use that many consider harmful for the industry. Transparency is important Many players care about AI use in games and when disclosure is missing. There are plenty of cases in which developers were “caught out” using generative AI and responded with ad hoc statements, asset changes, or even had Game of the Year awards rescinded. But there are also cases in which suspicion has caused cancellations or wrongful accusations of games using AI art when it was actually drawn by a human artist. This is why transparency on AI use is important. Many Australians report low familiarity with AI, and research suggests having more information can shift people’s views, helping people make informed choices and avoid witch hunts. Many people have ethical concerns about AI use, or are worried about environmental consequences due to how many resources the AI data centres chew up. All this means AI disclosure is currently a consumer rights issue, but it’s governed entirely by the platforms where people purchase the games. Players don’t need to know what shampoo a developer uses. But they do deserve a clear view of whether the art was AI-generated, whether writers or voice actors were replaced, and whether a game built on AI-generated code is likely to survive an update. Steam’s disclosure system is a start, but it means little if the information can’t be found or filtered for. Every game storefront should make generative AI use clear at the point of purchase – because players deserve better. Thomas Byers, PhD Candidate & Research Assistant, Faculty of Engineering & IT, The University of Melbourne and Bjorn Nansen, Associate Professor, School of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Fortnite gamers are motivated, not addicted (2026-01-29T13:45:00+05:30)

Andrew Jes Reid, Glasgow Caledonian University The World Health Organisation officially classifies gaming addiction as a disorder. The recent classification sought to address the growing use of digital technologies where people turn to electronic devices at the expense of other things such as work (or school), friendships and socialising. But evidence to support the idea that players are addicted to video games is lacking. The International Game Developers Association (IGDA) strongly opposed the classification “as clearly prejudicial against gaming as a hobby and interest” and for a “broad” terminology. But both parties seem to agree one one thing: more and more people are choosing to play games over other activities. Is reality broken? Back in 2011, game designer Jane McGonigal reflected on the increased play of video games in her book Reality is Broken: The fact that so many people of all ages, all over the world, are choosing to spend so much time in game worlds is a sign of something important, a truth that we urgently need to recognise. The truth is this: in today’s society, computer and video games are fulfilling genuine human needs that the real world is currently unable to satisfy … And unless something dramatic happens to reverse the resulting exodus, we’re fast on our way to becoming a society in which a substantial portion of our population devotes its greatest efforts to playing games, creates its best memories in game environments, and experiences its biggest successes in game worlds. Seven years on, I believe McGonigal’s assessment of society is close to reality. In a world where terror haunts the streets of major cities, mental health problems are on the rise, and international relations have become worryingly strained, people are increasingly seeking escape in the vivid and thrilling experiences of online gaming worlds. The Fortnite phenomenon Technologies have developed and changed how games are played at an exponential rate. Environments that host millions of players at the same time offer opportunities to interact and take on a game’s challenges together. In-game moments can be captured and shared among friends and online communities. Gamer personalities have become modern-day celebrities to many young players as a result of streaming and on-demand video services. Fortnite, one of the biggest gaming phenomena of this decade, plunges 100 players from a flying bus on to an island, with the goal of being the last player (or team) standing. With a series of obstacles to negotiate, the game embraces online game-playing in a way that has appealed hugely to young people and adults alike. But players are not addicted to rocket-riding or loot-hunting on their way to outlasting 99 other players. Instead, they are fully invested and motivated to beat (or at least engage with) their opponents. Beneath the eye-popping colours, fantastical obstacles and over-the-top scenarios – and the unsubstantiated claims that games are “addictive” – lies a well-designed blueprint for motivation that encourages players to pick up, play, and play some more. Games like Fortnite provide gratification in a way, as McGonigal wrote, “that the real world is currently unable to satisfy”. Motivated players One of the most significant developments in understanding motivation, particularly in relation to online gaming, is self-determination theory (SDT), developed initially in the 1970s by Edward Deci and Richard Ryan. This theory has been applied to games, but also to industries such as education, business and sport as a means of understanding what encourages people to act and behave in particular ways. Three key characteristics of motivation – autonomy, mastery and purpose – may help to explain why players of Fortnite are motivated and not addicted. 1. Autonomy The desire to be self-directed; not necessarily to be independent, but to have freedom of choice. Players are able to play the game specifically in their own way and derive great satisfaction from the experience. For example, a player who focuses on “fellowship”, the aesthetic (gamespeak for an emotional response) concerning the game’s social nature, may have little motivation to win because their satisfaction simply comes from playing with others. Some will be motivated to win (the “challenge” aesthetic), while others may aim to entertain teammates and opponents through humour and antics (the “expression” aesthetic). Fortnite accommodates various approaches and goals, which ensure players feel stimulated and satisfied afterwards. 2. Mastery The desire to progress and improve playing skills. Consistent updates (or “seasons”) of Fortnite introduce new features for players to interact with and, more importantly, develop new skills. The reconfiguration of the game’s map, for example, allows players to explore and compete in new environments. New weapons and items, such as jetpacks, homing rocket launchers and “slurp juice”, mean different tactics are needed in combat that will entail new risks and rewards. New features continually test a player’s mastery of the game – a key motivational driver. 3. Purpose The desire to be part of something meaningful, going beyond being just a single player. This is increasingly important as online gaming becomes a bigger and bigger part of a culture. Friends and communities with similar passions congregate in virtual worlds to participate in play. Online personalities (“streamers”, “YouTubers”, “vloggers”) record gameplay online as a matter of pride, and to entertain. Games-related YouTube channels, such as Ali-A, have amassed millions of followers and billions of video views in a staggering display of how important gaming is. Studies estimate that the worldwide gaming community will be around 2.7 billion people by 2021. Motivational theory is a really useful way to explain what players get out of the gaming experience, and help us to understand why they persist in playing, as opposed to what they’re playing and when. Self-determination theory opens the debate of video game “addiction” more broadly to look at game-playing as something that can satisfy basic human desires. But McGonigal’s theory should serve as a warning to the real world: it needs to raise its game when it comes to satisfying human needs. Just like Fortnite does. Andrew James Reid, Glasgow Caledonian University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Technology practitioners eye online skill gaming industry for career growth : Study (2025-12-24T12:34:00+05:30)

IANS Photo Kochi, (IANS) The online skill gaming industry is being seen as a potential high-growth sector by tech talent in Kerala, according to a study. The study, titled 'Unveiling the Potential and Scope of the Online Skill Gaming Industry: A Study with Technology Students and Professionals” by the E-Gaming Federation (EGF) and the Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata (ISIK), provides unique insights into the growing interest in the online gaming sector within the technology community. The study sampled 4,644 individuals from the tech community across Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu, demonstrating a very strong interest among both students and professionals in the online skill gaming sector. It found out that 72.5 per cent of respondents across India have expressed a strong inclination towards pursuing a career within this dynamic domain, while 60 per cent believed that "providing an opportunity to create in India for the world" could stem the brain drain to overseas tech jobs. Another finding was 100 per cent of participants in Kerala showed a willingness to pursue professional education in the gaming sector, indicating a strong desire to upskill and contribute to the industry's expansion. Dr Diganta Mukherjee, Professor at the Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata, said as the industry rapidly evolves, there is a unique opportunity to harness the creative potential of our youth and build a robust ecosystem that nurtures both technological innovation and economic growth. Kerala is home to more than 4100 start-ups operating in a variety of industries including hardware, healthcare, fintech, biotechnology, and artificial intelligence. The study's analysis underscores the vital role the sector could play in India's economic and technological trajectory. To unlock this potential, it is imperative that policymakers, industry stakeholders, and academia work hand in hand to create an environment that fosters innovation, skill development, and entrepreneurship. skill gaming industry Technology practitioners eye online skill gaming industry for career growth : Study | MorungExpress | morungexpress.com

Children live online more than ever – we need better definitions .... (2025-12-05T12:44:00+05:30)

Children live online more than ever – we need better definitions of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ screen time, Kathryn MacCallum, University of Canterbury and Cheryl Brown, University of Canterbury, The pandemic has fundamentally altered every part of our lives, not least the time we spend on digital devices. For young people in particular, the blurred line between recreational and educational screen time presents new challenges we are only beginning to appreciate. Even before COVID, there were concerns about screen time for children. A 2019-20 survey found four in five children were exceeding the current Ministry of Health recommendation of two hours’ recreational screen time a day. This was on top of screen time linked to learning. With lockdowns and social restrictions now a new normal, it is increasingly difficult to disengage from screens. Children are growing up in a digital society, surrounded by a multitude of devices used for everything from social connection to learning and entertainment. The boundaries between recreation, communication and learning are becoming less distinct. Screen time that may seem on the surface to be purely recreational can in reality be important for learning, supporting mental health and driving awareness of important issues. YouTube, for example, can be both entertaining and educational. It is increasingly used in classes to supplement teaching. But it is also used in other ways, including to drive social change, as German star Rezo demonstrated with a viral climate change video that prompted sweeping public reforms. Likewise the popular online game Minecraft has been shown to provide rich educational and social benefits. Even games like Roblox or Fortnite, where those benefits may be less apparent, still provide opportunities for rich social engagement and spaces for problem solving and experiential learning. Are official guidelines outdated? This all presents an interesting dilemma: can we really fit screen time into discrete categories, and should we apply limits to some but not others? This blurring of boundaries has led researchers from the University of Auckland’s Centre for Informed Futures – Koi Tū – to call for clearer and more detailed official screen time recommendations. Specifically, they felt the current recommended limits failed to represent the variety of screen time students experience. This was supported by a review of the academic literature covering the impacts of screen time. While research indicates a broad association between excessive screen time and a range of behavioural, learning and other problems, the results are far from conclusive and can generally be attributed to other factors. The review also found the type of screen time is important: in many cases, negative effects were driven by passive screen use, whereas interactive use didn’t have the same impacts. In fact, the latter can have positive influences, such as better learning achievement and enhanced cognitive skills. Getting the balance right This suggests we need to reorient our views of screen time away from a blunt measure of time spent on screens and towards better understanding what children are really doing on those screens. While balancing passive and interactive screen time is clearly important, so is finding ways to encourage and prioritise more socially and educationally productive online behaviour. This should also guide the adoption of technology in schools. Rather than wholesale integration within every aspect of learning, devices should clearly add value or improve teaching and learning, not simply replace traditional practices. The role of screen devices in classrooms is particularly relevant in light of New Zealand’s 2018 PISA results, which indicated children using devices in subjects like mathematics and science achieved lower scores than those who didn’t. In August this year, the Ministry of Education responded by saying: Digital devices have the potential to enhance learning, but there are few situations where this happens currently and many in which learning may be hindered. Active versus passive time It’s true there is considerable scepticism about the validity of the PISA tests, and wider research into the influence of screens in classrooms has shown mixed results. Generally, however, we cannot claim a causal, linear relationship between use of devices and academic outcomes. Rather than assuming the PISA results indicate screen time is detrimental to learning, we need to consider how screens are actually being used in classes. We need to focus on integrating technology that makes a difference and enhances learning. Students learn best when they are actively engaged and create and drive their own learning. The same principles can apply to the use of digital devices – limiting passive consumption in favour of students being actively creative. This will open up new learning opportunities and provide students with authentic experiences. For example, rather than students simply watching a YouTube clip to learn about the solar system, they might create their own augmented reality simulation, requiring them to apply their knowledge to correctly place, size and animate digital objects. Rebalancing screen time in this way will help avoid the more negative consequences of these ubiquitous devices and highlight some of their unique advantages. But this will require deeper and more critical thinking about what might be gained or lost in a world where engaging with digital technology is increasingly unavoidable. Kathryn MacCallum, Associate Professor of Digital Education Futures, University of Canterbury and Cheryl Brown, Associate Professor of e-Learning, University of Canterbury This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Virtual reality grooming is an increasing danger..... (2025-12-04T11:25:00+05:30)

Virtual reality grooming is an increasing danger. How can parents keep children safe? Marika Guggisberg, CQUniversity Australia: Virtual reality (VR) headsets are increasingly popular among adults and children. They are part of extended reality environments, which “enable ever more realistic and immersive experiences”. VR provides entry into computer-generated 3D worlds and games with different environments and interactions. Sometimes this is loosely referred to as the “metaverse”. The majority of VR headsets have a lower age limit of 10–13 years due to safety concerns of extended reality technologies in general and VR headsets in particular. But VR is increasingly used by young children, even of preschool age. These immersive technologies make it difficult to monitor children’s physical and emotional experiences and with whom they interact. So what are the dangers, and what can we do to keep the kids safe? The good and the bad VR allows children to dive into a digital world where they can immerse themselves into different characters (avatars). Thanks to the richness of the stimuli, VR can give the illusion of actually being in the virtual location – this is called “virtual presence”. If children then interact with other people in the virtual world, the psychological realism is enhanced. These experiences can be fun and rewarding. However, they can also have negative impacts. Children tend to have difficulty distinguishing between what occurs within VR and in the real world. As children identify with their avatars, the boundary between them and the VR device is blurred when playing in the metaverse. Children can even develop traumatic memories when playing in virtual worlds. Due to the immersive nature of VR, the sense of presence makes it feel as if the child’s avatar is actually “real”. Research is still emerging, but it is known children can form memories from virtual experiences, which means sexual abuse that occurs virtually could turn into a real-world traumatic memory. The rise of ‘cyber grooming’ Research has found that online predators use different grooming strategies to manipulate children into sexual interactions. This sometimes leads to offline encounters without the knowledge of parents. Non-threatening grooming strategies that build relationships are common. Perpetrators may use friendship strategies to develop a relationship with children and to build trust. The child then views the person as a trusted friend rather than a stranger. As a result, the prevention messages about strangers learned through education programs are ineffective in protecting children. A recent meta-analysis found that online sex offenders are usually acquaintances. Unsurprisingly, a proportion of adult predators pretend to be peers (that is, other children or teens). Sexual approaches by adults occur more commonly on platforms that are widely used by children. “Sexual communication with a child” offences, according to police statistics from the United Kingdom, increased by 84% between 2017–18 and 2021–22. Due to the hidden nature of cyber grooming, it is difficult to know the true prevalence of this issue. Some police reports in Europe indicate that approximately 20% of children have experienced online sexual solicitation, and up to 25% of children reported sexual interaction with an adult online. Concerning reports by Europol indicate that children have been drawn into erotic role play online. In interviews with researchers, some parents have also shared anecdotal experiences of their children being exposed to explicit sex acts on social online gaming platforms such as Roblox. Such encounters have the potential to create memories as if the virtual experience had happened in real life. For parents it is important to know that cyber groomers are well versed in the use of extremely popular virtual worlds. These provide predators with anonymity and easy access to children, where they can lure them into sexual engagement. Parents must try VR themselves A recent report from the Internet Watch Foundation charity reports that a record number of young children have been manipulated into performing sexual acts online. Through the metaverse, a sexual offender can be virtually brought into a child’s bedroom and engage in sexual behaviours through the child’s VR device. As VR worlds become more immersive, the danger for children only increases. Grooming occurs where parents least expect it to happen. To mitigate this danger, parents need to be aware of online grooming patterns – such as isolating the child, developing their trust and asking them to hide a relationship. Recognising the signs early can prevent the abuse from happening. But this can be difficult if parents aren’t familiar with the technology their child is using. To help them understand what their children experience in extended reality environments, parents must familiarise themselves with VR and the metaverse. If parents experience and experiment with the VR technology themselves, they can have conversations with their children about their experiences and understand with whom the child might interact with. This will allow parents to make informed decisions and put tailored safeguarding measures in place. These safeguards include reviewing the parental controls and safety features on each platform, and actively learning what their children are playing and whom they are interacting with. With such safeguards in place, parents can allow their children to have fun with VR headsets while keeping them protected. If you believe your child is targeted by grooming or exploitation, or you come across exploitation material, you can report it via ThinkuKnow or contact your local police. If you are a child, teen or young adult who needs help and support, call the Kids Helpline on 1800 55 1800. If you are an adult who experienced abuse as a child, call the Blue Knot Helpline on 1300 657 380 or visit their website. Marika Guggisberg, Senior Lecturer, Domestic and Family Violence, CQUniversity Australia This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Can a video game save a life? African refugee puts players in his race for survival (2025-11-18T11:33:00+05:30)

Can a video game save a life? African refugee puts players in his race for survival: Video game developer Lual Mayen, 25, who learned to code in a refugee camp after fleeing South Sudan, plays his new game at his home in Washington, D.C., US on January 7, 2020. (REUTERS File Photo) WASHINGTON, (Reuters): The goal of Lual Mayen's video game is to survive the horrific ordeal of a refugee, an experience that his family knows well, but the 25-year-old developer's ambition is to change the world. Mayen, who was born as his family traveled 250 miles (400 km) to escape South Sudan's second civil war, hopes his game, Salaam, will give players a better understanding of what it means to be homeless, hungry and on the run. "A lot of people don't understand the journey of a refugee," said Mayen, 25, who and spent his first 22 years in a refugee camp in northern Uganda before moving to the United States. "It was a journey of life and death," he said, recalling family stories about bomb attacks, wild animals and how babies were abandoned by parents who could no longer care for them. Now head of his own video game company in Washington, Mayen believes that "gamification," where participants make decisions unlike the passive experience of watching a movie, puts ordinary people in the shoes of a refugee. Salaam, an Arabic greeting meaning peace, enables users who have never had to flee a war-torn country to take a virtual trek to a "peaceful environment" -- if they can dodge hostile troops and find enough food and water. BRIDGING THE VIRTUAL AND REAL WORLDS While the game is free to play, when participants need to buy food, water or medicine for their virtual characters, they can make in-app purchases that will go to real-life refugees, he said. "Salaam is going to be the first-ever game that is going to bridge the virtual world and the reality on the ground," he said. "When someone buys food in the game, you're actually buying someone in a refugee camp food." But Mayen also has a long game in mind, hoping that Salaam will enlighten today's teens when they become the next generation of policymakers. "When they're making policy, they'll already understand what refugees face, just through playing my game," he said. "That's actually how we change the world and how we can be able to use the industry for good." Growing up in a refugee camp, Mayen had never even seen a computer until one day, at age 12, he reported to the camp's registration center. "It was a moment that actually helped me to understand, wow, I want to use this one day," he said. For the next three years, his mother, whom he made the main character in Salaam, worked tirelessly to stash away $300 to buy him a laptop, which he now keeps in a glass display case in his apartment. His game went viral after he uploaded it to Facebook and caught the attention of the gaming industry. In 2018, he was named a Global Gaming Citizen at the Game Awards in Los Angeles. "To be able to ... represent the continent and represent the game for social impact, it gives me so much hope," he said. "It gives more refugees hope." Can a video game save a life? African refugee puts players in his race for survival | MorungExpress | morungexpress.com

Online games should not be included in Australia’s social media ban .... (2025-10-27T13:43:00+05:30)

Online games should not be included in Australia’s social media ban – they are crucial for kids’ social lives: Marcus Carter, University of Sydney and Taylor Hardwick, University of Sydney, The Australian government has announced a plan to ban children under the age of 16 from social media. With bipartisan support, it’s likely to be passed by the end of the year. While some experts and school principals support the ban, the move has also been widely challenged by social media experts and children’s mental health groups. In a press conference on Friday, Communications Minister Michelle Rowland suggested the ban would include platforms such as TikTok, X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, Facebook and YouTube. An exemption would be considered for some services, such as YouTube Kids. Some media reports raised concerns about online games like Minecraft, Fortnite and Roblox falling under the ban, because people can communicate with others on these platforms. Platforms like Xbox Live or the PlayStation Network would potentially be in scope, too. A government spokesperson told Australian Community Media that a new, robust definition of “social media” would be forthcoming in the legislation. Games and messaging platforms are likely to be exempt, but we don’t know for sure at this stage. As experts in children’s online play, we argue it would be a mistake to ban children from social games. Games are crucial to children’s social lives and learning, and for their personal growth and identity development. What do young people gain from games? Games are widely popular, and 93% of Australian children aged 5–14 play videogames regularly. Two-thirds of children in Australia aged 9–12 play Minecraft at least once a month. Children and young people feel overwhelmingly positive about their online gameplay. In a recent study by the eSafety Commissioner, over three-quarters of young gamers indicated that “gaming had helped them with skill development, such as learning something new, using digital technologies, solving problems and thinking faster”. Minecraft has received particular attention for fostering creativity, collaboration and socially connecting young people. In 2021, the Minecraft: Education Edition was being used in schools in 115 countries, including Australia. This version of the game contains free lessons on various subjects. In a study across six schools in Queensland, researchers found children who learned with Minecraft: Education Edition “overwhelmingly identified themselves as better mathematics students”. Games offer rich spaces for play, which is critical for children’s identity formation, social lives and imagination. For instance, playing as a different character in an online game is an important form of playful identity exploration for children. (It’s valuable for adults, too.) Two decades of research have also shown us that children derive enormous social benefits from playing digital games with other people. In a 2015 report by the Pew Research Center, 78% of teenagers said online games help them feel more connected to their friends. A UNICEF review of research literature from earlier this year concluded that videogames can boost children’s wellbeing by making them feel competent, empowered and socially connected to others. This is particularly important for vulnerable children. For instance, Autcraft, a parent-created Minecraft server for neurodivergent children, has been enormously successful in providing children with a comfortable and safe digital space to socially connect with their peers. What about the risks? However, games are not always safe spaces for young people. Gaming culture is pervasively misogynistic, and games have played a role in mainstreaming far-right ideology by promoting meritocratic, racist and discriminatory ideologies. Gaming platforms like Roblox – where over half of players are under the age of 13 – have also come under fire for not doing enough to protect their users from online grooming and child abuse material. Increasingly, we’re also seeing the gamblification of games. In recent years, predatory monetisation models such as gambling-like lootboxes have become normalised. In Australia, the Classification Board recently banned “in-game purchases with an element of chance” for children under 15. According to the definition, these are “mystery items players can use real money to buy, without knowing what item they will get”. Incidentally, this decision demonstrates the ineffectiveness of blanket ban approaches. According to our yet-to-be-published research, numerous games with paid chance-based features such as lootboxes remain available on storefronts like Apple’s App Store, despite not complying with the new regulations. A ban can’t make children’s online lives better Just as all internet use isn’t bad, all games aren’t bad either. Parents may feel overwhelmed and under-informed about the videogames their children play, but bans can be easily circumvented. Australia’s eSafety Commissioner has expressed concerns that “some young people will access social media in secrecy”. The risk is that a ban will take away the onus on these platforms to make them safer for children. Why design for users who aren’t legally allowed to be on the platform? The government should be working in partnership with social media and online gaming platforms to ensure they are designed in children’s best interests, while allowing children the freedom to play and to access safer and richer digital lives. Marcus Carter, Professor in Human-Computer Interaction, ARC Future Fellow, University of Sydney and Taylor Hardwick, Postdoctoral Research Fellow in the School of Architecture, Design and Planning, University of Sydney This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Demands for game ownership must also include workers’ rights (2025-10-15T13:44:00+05:30)

With live service games, players are learning that what they’ve really bought is not a game but access to it. And, evidently, that access is something that can be revoked. (Unsplash/Samsung Memory) ‘ Stop Killing Games’: Demands for game ownership must also include workers’ rights, Louis-Etienne Dubois, Toronto Metropolitan University and Miikka J. Lehtonen, Rikkyo University When French video-game publisher Ubisoft announced it was shutting down servers for The Crew, a popular online racing game released in 2014, it wasn’t just the end of a title. It marked the beginning of a broader reckoning about the nature of digital ownership, led by players angry at the company’s decision to deny them something they had paid for. The Stop Killing Games (SKG) movement was born from that moment. As of July 2025, it has gathered more than 1.4 million signatures through the European Citizens’ Initiative. The European Commission is now obliged to respond. At the heart of the issue is a deceptively simple question: when we buy a video game, what are we actually purchasing? For many gamers, the answer used to be obvious. A game was a product, something you owned, kept and could return to at will. However, live service games have changed that dynamic. These are games usually played online with others and that typically require subscriptions or in-game payments to access features or content. They include popular titles such as Fortnite, League of Legends and World of Warcraft. With live service games, players are learning that what they’ve really bought is something more tenuous: access. And, evidently, access is something that can be revoked. Erasing gaming communities The issue goes well beyond The Crew. In the last couple of years alone, several games have been shut down, including Anthem, Concord, Knockout City, Overwatch 1, RedFall and Rumbleverse. There are valid reasons why companies might choose to end support for a title. The game industry is saturated and brutally competitive. Margins are tight, player expectations are high and teams often face impossible deadlines. When an online game underperforms, a publisher will likely be inclined to cut their losses and shut it down. Games tend to accumulate bugs in their code that are complex to clean and create player dissatisfaction. In our research, we have shown that when a game underperforms or becomes too costly to maintain, shutting it down can be a rational, even reparative, decision on many levels. Yet, when companies decide to shut down a live service game’s servers, it’s not just content that vanishes. So do the communities built around it, the digital assets (costumes, weapons and so on) players have earned or paid for and the sometimes hundreds of hours invested in mastering it. In the blink of an eye, the game is gone, often without recourse or compensation. That’s not just a customer service issue; it’s a cultural one. Games are not just another type of software. They are creative works that can foster shared experiences and vibrant communities. Players don’t just consume games, they inhabit them. They trade stories, build friendships and express themselves through digital spaces. Turning those spaces off can feel, to many, like erasing a part of their lives. This profound disconnect between business logic and player experience, which we theorized in the past, is what gave rise to the SKG movement. Video game publishers failed to anticipate the cultural backlash triggered by these shutdowns. What regulators can do   The European Commission’s response to the Stop Killing Games petition could help define the future of digital ownership, cultural preservation and ethical labour in gaming. (Unsplash/Guillaume Périgois) Players of shut-down games may believe they were misled and should be compensated. Unfortunately, the current system offers little transparency and even less protection for them. That’s where regulation can help. The European Commission now has a chance to provide much-needed clarity on what consumers in the European Union are actually buying when they purchase live service games. A good starting point would be requiring companies to disclose whether a purchase grants the buyer ownership or limited access, akin to recent legislation passed in California. Minimum support periods, clearer content road maps (the projected updates) and making companies create mandatory offline versions for discontinued online games might also help prevent misunderstandings. There’s room for creativity here, too. Rather than killing a game outright, companies could allow player communities to take over its maintenance and allow for the continued creation of new content, especially for titles with active fan bases. This is known as “modding,” and in some cases, community-led revivals have even inspired publishers to re-release enhanced editions years later. Developers need protections too  Instead of periodically ‘crunching,’ live service game developers are now constantly ‘grinding.’ (Unsplash/Sigmund) There’s another part of this story that’s unfortunately overlooked: the people who make these games. Video game developers are regularly subjected to long hours, poor conditions and toxic workplace cultures in order to meet the demands of continuous live service updates. In our research, we’ve found that this new model of endless content creation and perpetual support is unsustainable, not just financially or technologically, but humanly. Instead of periodically “crunching,” live service game developers are now constantly “grinding.” Somehow, in an industry notoriously demanding for workers, this model has managed to make things even worse. Policymakers need to protect both players and the workers creating games. That means, among other things, rethinking release schedules, enforcing rest periods for development teams and holding companies accountable for the well-being of their staff. The overall health of the industry depends on it. Whether you support the SKG movement or not, the issues it raises are urgent. While the ownership question is a very legitimate one, video game developers deserve more care and protection. The European Commission’s response could help define the future of digital ownership, cultural preservation and ethical labour in gaming. Louis-Etienne Dubois, Associate Professor, School of Creative Industries, The Creative School, Toronto Metropolitan University and Miikka J. Lehtonen, Specially Appointed Associate Professor, College of Business, Rikkyo University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

China cuts children's online gaming to one hour (2025-10-05T11:19:00+05:30)

Online gamers under the age of 18 will only be allowed to play for an hour on Fridays, weekends and holidays, China's video game regulator has said. The National Press and Publication Administration told state-run news agency Xinhua that game-playing would be only allowed between 8pm to 9pm, according to BBC News. It also instructed gaming companies to prevent children playing outside these times. Earlier this month a state media outlet branded online games "spiritual opium". Inspections of online gaming companies will also increase, to check that the time limits are being enforced the regulator said. Earlier rules had limited children's online game-playing to 90 minutes per day, rising to three hours on holidays. The move reflects a long running concern about the impact of excessive gaming on the young. A month prior to the latest restrictions, an article published by the state-run Economic Information Daily claimed many teenagers had become addicted to online gaming and it was having a negative impact on them. The article prompted significant falls in the value of shares in some of China's biggest online gaming firms. In July, Chinese gaming giant Tencent announced it was rolling out facial recognition to stop children playing between 22:00 and 08:00.The move followed fears that children were using adult ID's to circumvent rules.custom title