Synaptic

This assignment asked students to investigate a topic of personal interest at the intersection of scientific knowledge and society, with the goal of applying what we learned in class about critically analyzing how scientific information is used and considering our responsibilities as individuals and as a society. In this paper, Isaiah and Jackson do an excellent job with this analysis, and the contrast they drew between video games and gambling was particularly compelling. Their discussion effectively connected evidence from neuroscience to broader social implications and, ultimately, to the policy measures needed to promote safer video game practices.

– Dr. Paulina Mena

---

Video games have evolved from simple pixelated screens to immersive virtual worlds that attract billions of players worldwide. While gaming has become one of the most profitable industries globally, it has also sparked controversy regarding player well-being. Many modern games are intentionally designed to keep players engaged for extended periods of time using psychological techniques. This has led to growing concern about “gaming addiction,” especially among younger generations. The question arises: who is responsible for this problem, the players themselves, or the companies that design the games? We argue that video game companies should be held ethically and legally accountable for intentionally creating addictive systems in the same way that gambling and social media are, which are both heavily regulated businesses. Policies such as transparency, addiction warnings, and limiting exploitative reward systems could help reduce harm while preserving the original enjoyment of the games.

To understand why gaming addiction has become a serious concern, it is important to look at how games are built. Madigan (2016) explains that game developers use psychological principles to motivate players and make gameplay feel rewarding. In this context, leveling up, earning a loot crate, or unlocking achievements activates the brain’s reward system. The result is a feedback loop that encourages players to keep returning.

Madigan (2016) notes that these design choices are not accidental and are based on well-documented psychological effects, including variable reward schedules, which are commonly used in slot machines. Players never know exactly when they will receive a reward, which builds anticipation. Over time, this uncertainty leads to compulsive behavior that resembles addiction. When a game is deliberately structured around these systems, the company designing it cannot claim ignorance. Alter (2023) reports that the same areas of the brain that are activated while gaming are the same areas that are active while addicted to a substance or gambling. Companies are aware of the psychological mechanisms at play and profit directly from the resulting engagement.

Hodent (2021) explores the ethics of game design, emphasizing that games are not inherently harmful. Many games can improve skills such as problem-solving, memory, and attention. However, she warns that unethical design choices can exploit players’ vulnerabilities. Some developers implement “dark patterns,” which are features that manipulate users into playing longer or spending more money.

For example, some game systems encourage players to log in daily or limit progress unless they pay real money. These tactics turn a game from a source of entertainment into a psychological trap. Hodent (2021) believes that the outcome depends on how developers choose to use their understanding of psychology: they can design for players’ well-being or for player exploitation. When companies choose the latter approach, they should be held accountable for the negative consequences that follow.

This ethical argument places responsibility on companies, not just players. Gamers, especially children and teenagers, may not have the maturity or awareness to resist these designs. In contrast, corporations creating these games are fully aware of what they are doing. Respondents associated with these corporations encourage ethical practices and promote healthier gaming experiences. Laws that could be implemented to hold gaming companies accountable include implementing spending limits on the games for minors and mandatory warnings at the point of purchase about the game’s addictive potential. These laws would allow for transparency in buying games and would make it far more ethical.

Fisherman (2023) compares video game addiction to gambling addiction and notes that games use the same psychological mechanisms, variable rewards, progression systems, and social pressures to keep players engaged. Research has shown that people suffering from gaming addiction exhibit reduced brain activity in areas related to self-control and decision-making. This means that for certain players, quitting is not simply a matter of willpower; it is a neurological struggle.

A real-world example of regulating these manipulative game mechanics is how Belgium handles loot boxes. Verbruggen (2025) notes that in 2018, the government ruled that paid loot boxes constitute a form of gambling and banned them. If a game wanted to continue to use its paid loot box system, it would be required to obtain a gambling license, which makes it inaccessible to children and teens. South Korea takes a less restrictive approach but still enforces laws about loot boxes. They enforced laws to make video game companies disclose the exact probability of receiving specific items, so no one can be deceived by the chances of getting an item they want. The United States could enforce similar laws, which would lead to a healthier and more ethical gaming environment.

Although not all players become addicted, those who do often experience significant harms, including lost time, declining academic performance, and financial problems related to in-game purchases (Fisherman, 2023). Fisherman argues that when companies design games with mechanics that can cause such harm, they share moral responsibility for those outcomes. Just as tobacco companies were held accountable for marketing addictive products, game developers should similarly be held accountable for intentionally creating designs that promote compulsive play. This should include legal penalties requiring companies to reimburse money lost due to these manipulative strategies.

The most concerning effects of addictive game design appear among young players. Winds et al. (2025) found that adolescents with a history of adverse childhood experiences are especially vulnerable to problematic internet and gaming use. Their research highlights how social and emotional factors can make certain individuals more likely to develop addictive behaviors. This suggests that game addiction is not merely a personal choice; it interacts with deeper psychological and social issues. When companies create games that exploit these vulnerabilities, they exploit those who are least able to protect themselves. Children and teenagers with unstable home environments or mental health struggles can quickly fall into excessive gaming patterns, leading to sleep deprivation and social isolation. If developers are aware that their products have these effects and evidence suggests that many are, they should be expected to act responsibly.

While prevention is the best solution, there are already efforts to treat gaming addiction once it develops. Chang et al. (2022) reviewed treatment methods for children and adults with Internet Gaming Disorder (IGD). The study found that a combination of therapy and medication, especially cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), is effective in reducing gaming addiction. However, the need for such treatments highlights a bigger issue. If companies stopped designing addictive systems, fewer players would require clinical intervention in the first place.

Chang et al. (2022) reinforce the idea that gaming addiction is real and measurable. It is recognized as a mental disorder by the World Health Organization. Therefore, companies cannot simply dismiss addiction as “bad player habits.” They are creating and selling products that directly contribute to a public health concern. Holding them accountable would encourage better design practices and reduce the number of young people needing clinical treatment for gaming-related issues.

Some argue that players are responsible for their own behavior. After all, millions of people play video games without developing addictive habits. Supporters of this view contend that gaming is a hobby like any other, too much of anything can be harmful, but that does not necessarily implicate the companies.

This argument has some validity but overlooks the power imbalance between corporations and consumers. Game developers employ teams of psychologists, data scientists, and marketers whose job is to maximize player engagement. Players, on the other hand, are often unaware of how their brains are being influenced. Expecting an average teenager to resist professional psychological engineering is unrealistic. Just as food companies face scrutiny for using excessive sugar and salt to make their products addictive, video game companies should be held to similar ethical standards.

Video games have the power to entertain, educate, and connect people worldwide; however, they also have the potential to manipulate. When companies intentionally design games that encourage addiction through psychological rewards, monetization traps, and endless progression systems, they cross an ethical line. Research from psychology, psychiatry, and behavioral studies demonstrates that gaming addiction is a real concern with serious consequences, particularly for young and vulnerable players.

Therefore, video game companies should be held responsible for the addictive designs they create. Accountability does not mean banning games or taking away player freedom, rather it ensures that the industry values human well-being as much as profit. By promoting transparency, ethical design, and player protection, companies can still create enjoyable and engaging games without causing harm. Ultimately, the goal should be balance, making rewarding games, not controlling, engaging, not exploitative.

Works Cited

Alter, A. (2023). Irresistible: The rise of addictive technology and the business of keeping us hooked. Penguin Press.

Chang, C.-H., Chang, Y.-C., Yang, L., & Tzang, R.-F. (2022). The comparative efficacy of treatments for children and young adults with internet addiction/internet gaming disorder: An updated meta-analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(5), 2612. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19052612.

Fisherman, A. (2023). The argument for video game addiction. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/video-game-health/202307/the-argument-for-video-game-addiction.

Getting gamers: The psychology of video games and their impact on the people who play them. (2016). Choice Reviews Online, 53(11), 53–4687.https://doi.org/10.5860/CHOICE.197313.

Hodent, C. (2021, May 3). The psychology of video games: Are video games good or bad for players? Celia Hodent Blog .https://celiahodent.com/the-psychology-of-video-games/.

Verbruggen, D. (2025). The situation of loot boxes in video games in Belgium. Video Games Federation Belgium .https://vgfb.be/loot-boxes-in-belgium/.

Winds, K., Plattner, B., Salcher, B., Langthaler, P. B., Kohlböck, G., Fuchs, M., Schaffer, P., & Rainer, L. J. (2025). Adverse childhood experiences and problematic use of the internet among a child and adolescent psychiatric clinical population. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 139, 152456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2024.152456.