>You are willing to abstract everything from the equation apart from the outcome, and that is so wrong.
So are governments, apparently. They don't care about the psychological impact of gambling. They still allow alcohol, subsidize corn syrup, and permit a number of otherwise harmful personal life choices. They care that it becomes insidious enough to cause crime rings. Or simply that it becomes a channel of funding that the govt. cannot easily tax.
none of that matters for a video game as of now, so I'm not surprised most countries are still arguing about it. They are talking past each other.
even under your definitions, you can argue that "the want isn't interesting" is still a valid defense for these lawmakers. Even the internet community has its share of people bashing others for playing video games or watching various TV shows. If these assumed millennials can't take games seriously, how will the boomer governments?
There's the argument that usage of drugs like alcohol increase government costs with health and law enforcement. Gaming may make your life more miserable and more sedentary but as you stay at home it generally is a win for government.
So are governments, apparently. They don't care about the psychological impact of gambling. They still allow alcohol, subsidize corn syrup, and permit a number of otherwise harmful personal life choices. They care that it becomes insidious enough to cause crime rings. Or simply that it becomes a channel of funding that the govt. cannot easily tax.
none of that matters for a video game as of now, so I'm not surprised most countries are still arguing about it. They are talking past each other.
even under your definitions, you can argue that "the want isn't interesting" is still a valid defense for these lawmakers. Even the internet community has its share of people bashing others for playing video games or watching various TV shows. If these assumed millennials can't take games seriously, how will the boomer governments?