作者：Mez Breeze

2012年2月初，一位名叫Chen Rong-yu的狂热游戏玩家死在了台湾的一家网吧里。此前，他一直通宵达旦地玩游戏。电脑屏幕上显示，他死前玩的就是时下大热的在线多人战斗游戏《英雄联盟》（《LOL》）。

Chen从周二晚上10点开始玩游戏，一直玩到第二天的正午。网吧的服务员注意到他打电话时还不忘继续玩《LOL》。他的死亡悲剧源于多个原因，其中包括他无视自己明显的身体异常信号。这个抵抗警报的行为很大程度上导致了他的死亡。

另一个促成悲剧的原因是，当死神正在逼近Chen时，在场的所有人都没有注意到。在这么长的一段时间里，网吧员工和顾客居然没有觉察到一个活生生的人已经变成了一具冷冰冰的尸体？居然不会想到一个正常人怎么可能呆呆地坐在电脑前长达9小时？

Chen（和其他在网吧中游戏的玩家）如此强烈地沉迷于游戏是否应该算是完全的上瘾？还是说是这类型的游戏让他们无法抗拒？

游戏成瘾的定义

精神病学家Philip Tam是澳大利亚的网络调查与研究组织的主席和联合创始人。他认为，电脑游戏成瘾和网络依赖现象呈上升趋势：

电脑、网络和游戏已经是大多数人生活中的必需品，特别是年轻一代—-这个论断已经是陈腔滥调了。在人类短暂的历史上，网络的力量和影响范围大大超越了几乎所有的技术……在很大程度上可以说，网络滥用/成瘾正是21世纪的后现代终极灾难。

与网络成瘾一样，游戏成瘾的概念也很难定义。《精神障碍诊断与统计手册（第四版）》（游戏邦注：在心理学领域被称作“精神病学的《圣经》”）并没有将游戏成瘾纳入疾病的范畴。该手册的第五版也没有明确为网络和电子游戏成瘾划分出一个“网络游戏成瘾”的类别，而认为其有待进一步研究。

欧美国家将游戏成瘾定义成一种强迫症，即当玩家通过电脑、游戏机、掌机或手机等设备玩游戏时，出现的一系列异常行为。游戏的种类与设备一样五花八门，常见的类型包括FPS、社交游戏（如Zynga公司的产品）、MMO和MMORPG、策略游戏和跨媒体游戏等。

在《美国精神病学杂志》的一篇文章中，作者Jerald Block概括的以下一系列条件有助于我们定义游戏成瘾：

1、过度使用，没有时间感或无视基本动机。

2、当无法用到电脑时，会产生诸如愤怒、焦虑和/或沮丧的心情。

3、希望得到更好的电脑设备、更多软件或更长的使用时间。

4、出现争论、说谎、成绩下降、社交障碍和疲乏等消极反应。

在Chen Rong-yu的案例中，他便在游戏中肆意狂欢，忘记了时间，也忘记了可能拯救自己生命的身体警报。

《游戏玩家理论》的作者McKenzie Wark是一名理论学家和教育家，他提出了自己的质疑，即长时间使用电脑是否可以被归类为成瘾：

“成瘾”是正确的用词吗？或只是一种比喻？为什么我们要给一些人强行贴上不同于其他人的标签？当我的孩子一整天都沉迷于阅读时，我和我妻子是很高兴的。可当他一整天都在玩游戏时，我们却感到担忧。谁能说前者的沉迷比后者的成瘾更好或者更差？

考虑到精神病临床医生和游戏专家都无法为电子游戏成瘾下一个确切的定义，大多数人对其概念感到困惑就不足为奇了。

另一个揭示了过度游戏有危险的例子发生在2012年7月。一名18岁的台湾玩家Chuang在网吧里连续玩了40小时的《暗黑3》以后倒地身亡。Chuang的情况与Chen Rong-yu的惊人地相似：二人在积极游戏时，长时间保持身体姿势不变，并无视由此产生的生理和心理上的过重负担。

这两名玩家在各自的游戏世界中流连忘返，都忽略了最基本的生理需求，如吃饭和睡觉。在这两个案例中存在一个明显的区别：尽管Chuang也是在网吧里玩游戏，但为了使游戏不被网吧员工或其他玩家干扰，他自己租了一个隔间。

“乐趣失败”和强迫循环

究竟是什么导致Chen和Chuang等玩家不断地沉迷于过度游戏？单机游戏设计师和骨灰级玩家Andrea Phillips认为不同的游戏类型会产生不同的强迫症状：

FPS和MMORPG通常都需要较长的游戏时间；而Zynga式的社交和休闲游戏则要求更频繁的游戏次数，即鼓励玩家尽可能经常上线。我确实认为Zynga式的社交、手机游戏更加邪恶，因为许多这类游戏的玩家更可能陷入强迫循环。而这些游戏其实不能带给玩家社交、竞技、剧情或探索方面等有意义的价值。

我现在玩的一款游戏名为《Jetpack Joyride》（不是Zynga的游戏！）。在游戏中，你每一次做的都是同样的事：驾驶喷气飞机避开陷阱如激光和导弹。游戏机制会产生微小的变化，以吸引玩家不断游戏。当你游戏的时间足够长后，你可以升级小道具，使飞机更容易避开一些陷阱，或收集更多金币……为了“升级”，你要不断完成游戏提供的任务……但事实上，每一次游戏，你做的都是一样的事：在一两分钟的时间内飞过随机产生的通道。除了这种循环反复，别无它物。

Phillips还解释道，这种强迫循环与过度游戏产生的循环是类似的。他提出导致这两种成瘾特征的强化元素如下：

另外也有一种强迫循环（游戏邦注：出自斯金纳理论的术语）的肆意和蓄意使用……赌博的核心吸引力也是强迫循环。玩家焦虑地感到自己可能得到奖励，但不知道具体是什么时间，为了等到这个时刻，他就会一直玩下去。就这样，玩家产生了几乎不可动摇的信念，认为他一定会在游戏的某个时刻大获成功。

等到这个时刻，一切就得到回报了，即使在此之前已经出现了无数次似乎是“就是这时候”的时刻。再来一次就是这个时刻。再下一分钟就是这个时刻。但再也没有这样的时候了……很大程度上，我已经与多人游戏、MMO等东西划清界线了，因为我就是无法相信自己了。至于有故事有结尾的游戏，我知道我会放纵地玩，以此回避废寝忘食和时限的后果；所以除非我有一整周空闲的时间，否则我甚至不会开始玩那种有剧情的游戏。

通过零星奖励积累而成的“大获成功”，这种强迫性的冲动应该不会让大多数硬核玩家感到陌生：MMORPG利用这种间歇性强化使玩家在游戏中的沉浸感异常地高。以MMORPG《魔兽世界》为例，玩家如身临其境，会在游戏世界中呆上极长的时间。

甚至《魔兽世界》中的人物或玩家角色之间也会通过基于激励机制的游戏环境产生交互活动。玩家们执行任务和与其他玩家组队，以获得高级游戏道具和高级“奖励”。但某些奖励是不确定的，如不同的怪物掉落装备和武器的概率各不相同。

看似随机的奖励方式导致了Tam所谓的“乐趣失败”：

根据新闻报道，许多“网络游戏致死”的案例（通常发生在台湾、日本和韩国）与MMORPG和玩家的竞争者有关—-玩家感到有必要延长游戏时间，因为要与世界各地的其他玩家竞争……

我们都知道，成功的游戏总是包含强烈的满足感（实现目标之类），以及“乐趣失败”，即当玩家几乎要达到关键目标（导致玩家一次又一次地尝试）的时候，以及玩家如何取得进步的清析反馈。

“乐趣失败”与另一个心理学概念“注意力偏向”拥有直接的关系。注意力偏向即，一个人不断地将自己的注意力优先放在“情绪主导的刺激物上，无视其他相关信息”。听起来很耳熟？像Chen和Chuang这样的玩家，正解释了他们的无力或勉强地协调自己的日常需求，而将游戏放在注意力的优先层次上。

游戏公司应该为成瘾行为负责？

注意力偏向可能部分解释了为什么玩家乐意花无数时间于在游戏世界中追求非玩家看来那么幼稚且不切实际的目标。但设计这些导致成瘾或强迫行为的游戏的公司，难道就可以撇清责任吗？

Andrea Phillips认为有些游戏开发商确实有意制作鼓励过度行为的游戏，因为“游戏设计领域普遍认为使游戏‘更加令人沉迷’是一种积极说法，也是游戏达到‘高度沉浸感和乐趣’的标准。”

当质问游戏制作公司是否故意生产导致失调或不健康的游戏行为时，另类游戏实境游戏设计师Jan Libby以设计师和玩家的身份回应道：

总之，是的，但我认为那些设计师的初衷不是“嘿，我将设计一款不健康的游戏！”，而是他们一直都在努力研究能让玩家享受游戏，并不断返回游戏世界的方法。

我知道总有一些机制吸引我们不断返回游戏。我玩了许多让我不能自拔的社交游戏和MMORPG……我不能肯定地说我的项目就是为了刺激玩家“上瘾”，但我确实在想办法通过剧情和角色吸引玩家，让他们不断返回我所创造的世界。

McKenzie Wark认为，一般来说，媒体创造者—-包括游戏公司，始终在与一个抓住和保留注意力的问题作斗争：“与任何其他媒体类似，游戏迎合了我们的嗜好和渴望……杂志或小说或电影也是如此。吸引和留住受众正是媒体创造者的职责。”

从纯商业的角度看，开发具有高度沉浸感、“乐趣失败”和让玩家保持高度忠诚的游戏是完全在理的。然而，如果公司开发游戏时只着眼于这种意图—-故意牺牲其他东西以突出致瘾的游戏元素，那么这可能会太过偏离游戏设计的轨道，最终减少游戏的整体乐趣，导致可怕的“刷任务”。

“刷任务”或乏味无趣的游戏玩法，通常暗示着游戏中存在为了进度而不断地升级。许多忠实玩家顺从这种游戏玩法，认为为了获得来自间歇性强化的奖励必然要经历这一段过程。只有极少数人认为“刷任务”是整体游戏体验的一部分，将这种单调的活动作为焦点游戏玩法—-而不是强迫性行为：并非所有在游戏中花大量时间的玩家都上瘾了，并最终导致悲剧的结果（如Chen和Chuang的死亡）。正如Tam所说的：

是否可以说游戏设计师鼓励“不健康的”游戏，取决于你是将大量玩游戏当作积极的“热情”（如硬核玩家）还是不健康的沉迷。

应对强迫性游戏行为

中国和韩国对网络和游戏成瘾的应对措施是，将症状最严重的人送去戒瘾训练营。这些训练营有不同的治疗范围，处理过度游戏或过度上网（接近病态的程度）的人，特别是青少年的方法也各有不同。

许多训练营通过军事课程来矫正游戏成瘾的行为。在这些训练营中，参与者禁止使用网络和手机，要经常参加户外活动和身体锻炼。不幸的是，这些训练营中有那么几个惹上了争议，反对者谴责训练营的某些经营者虐待（甚至折磨）参与者。

美国等国家还有他们自己的治疗中心，用于帮助那些想戒掉游戏瘾恢复正常生活的人。像澳大利亚的网络调查和研究组织便采取了另一种处理办法，即提供教育资源和针对性信息、组织专家论坛以“分享和讨论这个领域的研究和临床发展。”

还有其他组织注重发挥游戏本身的有益作用，即通过日常活动的游戏化，创造良性反馈循环，或开发能产生有益影响的游戏（如Jane McGonigal的《Superbetter》）。大型开放网络课程如Udacity为了提供新的教育平台，也采用了类似于某些游戏的机制，尽管严格地说来并不算游戏。

也许这些游戏式元素的选择性利用表明了我们应该更加关注游戏的普遍意义，而不是不断地强调其消极方面（如使人上瘾）。也许我们可以制定出一套有关玩家行为的严格标准，包括玩游戏的害处和益处：甚至最终从临床定义和治疗的角度，质问游戏成瘾的修辞是否有必要。正如Tam提出的：

“控制”或“治疗”21世纪的弊病如网络成瘾或电子游戏成瘾，并不存在简单的单一的办法。只有所有利益相关者（父母、学校、意见领袖、游戏和技术公司、青少年）之间进行完全、开放的探讨才能对解决这个困难带来持久的影响。纯粹的“心理健康”观点是不够的；将有关社会、进化、技术、教育的和越来越多的政治的和哲学的因素考虑进去，这才是重点。

（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，拒绝任何不保留版权的转载，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

A quiet killer Why video games are so addictive

By Mez Breeze

On a Wednesday night in early February 2012, a waitress at a Taiwanese-based internet café made a grim discovery. Chen Rong-yu, a binge gamer, was found dead in the chair from which he’d been engaged in a marathon gaming session. The game that Chen was playing prior to his death was League of Legends, an immensely popular MOBA (Multiplayer Online Battle Arena) computer game.

Chen started his game session at 10pm on a Tuesday evening: at midday the next day, a waitress from the café observed Chen talking on his mobile phone while still continuing to play League of Legends on his computer terminal. This was to be the last time anyone noticed Chen alive. Nine hours later he was discovered deceased, slumped in his chair with both arms stiffened in a pose that indicate Chen was still attempting to reach the keyboard and mouse whilst undergoing a suspected cardiac arrest.

This sad event should give any gamer – or anyone in significant social relationships with gamers – pause for thought. Chen’s death is tragic for multiple reasons, including the fact Chen ignored obvious physical cues – and resisted warning signs – to stop the very behaviour that was contributing to his impending death.

Another factor in the tragedy of Chen’s passing is the obliviousness of everyone present at the time of his death. How could the Café staff and customers let a deceased person remain undetected in their midst for such a length of time? What factors could have been so pervasive that the staff (and Chen’s fellow gamers-in-arms) would consider it normal for a man to be sitting stock-still in front of a computer for nine hours without contemplating his welfare?

Was Chen’s compulsive need to play (and those of his fellow internet café gamers) so severe that such behaviours should be classified as a full-blown addiction? Just what is it about these types of games that makes them so compelling?

Defining game addiction

Computer game addiction and Internet dependencies are on the rise, according to Dr. Philip Tam, a psychiatrist and the President and co-founder of the Network for Internet Investigation and Research in Australia:

It is a cliché to state that computing, the Internet and gaming are now ubiquitous elements of daily life for most if not all people, particularly the young. The power and reach of the WWW most probably far exceeds any technology in humanity’s short but eventful history… In many ways, Internet Overuse/ Addiction is the ultimate post-modern affliction for the 21st Century.

Just as with Internet addiction, the concept of game addiction is slippery to define. The current version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) – or “psychiatric bible” as it’s known colloquially in psychological circles – does not acknowledge game addiction as a disorder. Internet and video game addiction have not been explicity included in the fifth edition of the DSM (due for release mid-2013) with the category of “Internet Gaming Addiction” instead being considered for future research.

Game addiction is conceptualised in Western countries as a compulsion or set of aberrant behaviours that occur when a user is focused on playing games via computers, consoles, wearable computers, or mobile devices. The games may vary as much as the hardware, with popular genres including First Person Shooters, App-oriented Social Games (such as those produced by companies like Zynga), MMOGs and MMORPGs (Massive Multiplayer Online Games/Role Playing Games), Strategy Games and Transmedia/Alternate Reality Games.

In an article in The American Journal of Psychiatry, author Jerald Block outlines the following set of criteria to help define game addiction:

1.excessive use, often associated with a loss of sense of time or a neglect of basic drives

2.withdrawal, including feelings of anger, tension, and/or depression when the computer is inaccessible

3.tolerance, including the need for better computer equipment, more software, or more hours of use

4.negative repercussions, including arguments, lying, poor achievement, social isolation, and fatigue.

In Chen Rong-yu’s case, his excessive use manifested in binge gaming sessions where a gamer plays for an extended (often extreme) amount of time while actively neglecting other concerns, including potentially life-saving absences from the game.

Theorist and Educator McKenzie Wark (and author of “Gamer Theory”) questions whether prolonged use of computer games should even be classified as a discernible addiction:

Is ‘addiction’ even the right term? Or is it just a metaphor? Why do we stigmatize certain engrossments more than others? When my kid reads books all day, my partner and I are happy about it. When he plays games all day, we are not. Who is to say one is better or worse than the other?

Given that even mental health clinicians and game professionals find it hard to establish definitive markers of video game addiction, it’s no wonder that the mainstream majority also struggle with the concept.

Another example that illustrates the dangers associated with prolonged bouts of binge gaming is the July 2012 case of Chuang, an 18 year old Taiwanese gamer who died after playing Diablo III consecutively for 40 hours at an internet café. The circumstances surrounding Chuang’s death were startlingly similar to those of Chen Rong-yu: both had undergone significant physical and mental strain associated with an activity (gaming) that restricted physical movement for long periods of time.

Both Chuang and Chen had neglected basic needs – like eating and sleeping – in order to attain unbroken immersion in their respective game environments. A key difference in their cases involves the fact that Chuang, although playing Diablo III from an internet café, had rented a private room in order to play for an extended length of time. This isolation may have unfortunately acted to prevent any intrusion from other gamers or café staff.

The feeling of ‘fun failure’ and compulsion loops

What drives gamers like Cheng and Chuang to repeatedly engage in excessive game play? Transmedia Game Designer and lifelong gamer Andrea Phillips believes specific types of games produce different compulsive symptoms:

FPSes and MMORPGs tend to maximize length of play session; whereas Zynga-style social and casual games maximize number of sessions [via encouraging] a return to the game as often as possible. I do find the Zynga-style social, mobile games more evil, if you will, just because many of these games are very close to compulsion loops and nothing else. Not a meaningful sense of community or competition, not a narrative, not a sense of exploration.

I’m playing a game right now called Jetpack Joyride (not a Zynga game!). In this game, you do the exact same thing every time: You ride a flying jetpack down a hall and avoid traps like lasers and missiles. The game keeps you playing by offering minor variations in the mechanic. After you play enough times, you can upgrade to gadgets that will make it easier to avoid some of the traps, or collect more coins along the way…the game is constantly giving you missions to fulfil to “level up”…But really, every single time you play it’s the same exact thing: One or two minutes of the same randomly-generated hallways. There’s nothing there but the loop.

Phillips also explains that this compulsion loop is similar to ones produced by excessive gambling, with the concept of positive reinforcement being instrumental to both addictive patterns:

There’s also rampant and intentional use of the compulsion loop, which is a term ultimately derived from Skinnerian psychology…The core appeal of gambling is the compulsion loop, too…It’s that tension of knowing you might get the treat, but not knowing exactly when, that keeps you playing. The player develops an unshakeable faith, after a while, that THIS will be the time I hit it big.

THIS is the time it will all pay off, no matter how many times it hasn’t so far. Just one more turn. One more minute. But it’s really never just one more… For the most part, I steer clear of multiplayer situations, MMOs, and so on because I just can’t trust myself. With narrative games with an ending, I know I’ll binge-play them, so to avoid the fallout of missed sleep and deadlines, I don’t even start a game like that unless I have a good solid week with no serious commitments.

This impulse to “hit it big” through sporadic rewards should be familiar to most hardcore gamers: MMORPGs invoke this type of intermittent reinforcement to keep players engagement levels exceptionally high. An example of such a MMORPG is World of Warcraft (WoW), where players participate in an immersive game environment that entices players to stay in-game for extreme lengths of time.

Each WoW game character or avatar -(also known as a toon) interacts with others via a game environment built upon tiered incentive systems. Players perform quests and group with other players to obtain advanced in-game items and achieve high end “prizes” otherwise unobtainable via solo play. Certain kinds of these rewards aren’t immediately assured, however: items such as armour and weapons may have a variable drop rate from specific WoW NPCs (Non-Player Characters).

This method of only rewarding players occasionally (and seemingly randomly) results in what Dr Tam describes as “fun failure”:

What one can observe is, according to freely-available news reports, many of the ‘deaths by internet gaming’ (usually in Taiwan, Japan and South Korea) have involved MMORGs and their equivalents – possibly as there is more ‘pressure’ to play for extended periods alongside your ‘guild companions’ who are often playing overseas…

It is generally accepted that a successful game contains the key elements of a sense of fiero (intense satisfaction in achieving an aim) [and] a feeling of ‘fun failure’  when one nearly achieves that key aim (leading to one trying again and again), and clear feedback in how one is progressing.

This idea of “fun failure” links directly to the psychological concept of attentional bias. Attentional bias is where an individual constantly prioritises their attention towards “emotionally dominant stimuli in one’s environment and to neglect relevant data”. Sound familiar? For gamers like Cheng and Chuang, this explains their inability – or reluctance – to stay attuned to their everyday needs and instead focus exclusively on their gaming priorities.

Are game companies inciting addictive behaviour?

Attentional bias may partially explain why gamers willingly spend enormous amounts of time pursuing in-game goals that may seem juvenile or escapist to non-gamers. But do the companies that design the games also need to shoulder their fair share of responsibility for providing vehicles for such addictive, or compulsive, behaviours?

Andrea Phillips agrees that some game developers do deliberately create games that encourage excessive behaviours, where “it’s common for a game design spec to talk about making a game ‘more addictive’ in positive terms, as shorthand for ‘highly engaging and fun to play’.”

When queried if game production companies might be knowingly producing computer games that are geared towards disproportionate or unhealthy game play, Alternate Reality Game designer Jan Libby donned both her designer and player hat while responding:

In a word – yes, but I don’t believe these designers sit down and say ‘Hey I’m going to make an unhealthy game!’  I would guess they’re searching for ways to get people fired up about the game and to keep them returning to the gameworld.

I know there are mechanics that keep us coming back. I play and have played many social [games] and MMORPG’s that have me at their mercy… I’m not certain my projects are designed to trigger “addiction”, but I do look for ways to hook people with a story and characters that’ll keep them returning to the world I’ve created.

McKenzie Wark is of the opinion that media creators in general – including game companies – continually grapple with the problem of capturing and sustaining attention: “Like any other media, games attach themselves to both our appetites and our desires…It is as true of journalism or fiction or cinema as it is of games. It’s the maker’s job to catch and hold you”.

From a purely business point of view, it makes complete sense to develop games that provide deeply engaging experiences, complete with “fun failures” and hooks to keep commitment levels high. However, if a company specifically embarks on game development with the intention of emphasising addictive game elements at the expense of others, this may alter a game’s trajectory to such a degree that these variables eventually reduce overall enjoyment of the game, resulting in the dreaded “grind”.

Grinding – or bland and often boring gameplay – is often symptomatic of games that require repetitious levelling in order to progress. Many steadfast gamers approach this type of play with resignation, accepting it as part of their “fix” in order to obtain rewards derived from intermittent reinforcement. There are a select few who instead accept the grind as part of the overall game experience, and who enjoy the reality of such monotonous actions as focused – as opposed to compulsive – play: not all gamers who spend substantial time in-game are addicted and will ultimately end up in destructive (or in the case of Cheng and Chuang, life-ending) routines. As Dr Tam says:

Whether one states that the game designers encourage ‘unhealthy’ gameplay will depend on whether you view heavy gaming as a positive ‘passion’ (as hardcore gamers do), or an unhealthy obsession.

Dealing with compulsive gaming

China and South Korea deal with the issue of Internet and game addiction by sending those worst affected to Addiction Boot Camps. These Boot Camps vary in terms of treatment regimes, and are the preferred method of dealing with gaming – or Internet overuse – that verges on the pathological, especially for adolescents.

Many of these Boot Camps seek to address compulsive gaming behaviour through military style programs employed by schools like the Jump Up Internet Rescue School. At these camps Internet and phones usage are restricted, with a strong emphasis instead placed on outdoor activities and physical exercise. Unfortunately, controversies surround several of these camps with accusations of participant mistreatment (even torture) being levelled against some of their operators.

Countries like the USA also have their own treatment centres that proactively seek to deal with users who want to quit and resume their lives without having gaming as a core defining aspect. Organisations such as the Australian Network for Internet Investigation and Research take a different approach to game over-immersion by providing education resources and targeted information, as well as operating as a forum for professionals to “to share and discuss research and clinical developments in the field”.

Other groups seek to utilise the constructive power of intensive gaming through gamification of everyday activities in order to create positive feedback loops, or the development of games specifically designed to create beneficial consequences (such as Jane McGonigal’s Superbetter).  Even Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) like Udacity – though not strictly games as we have come to know them – harness mechanics similar to certain gaming formats in an effort to offer new educational-based platforms.

Perhaps such alternative harnessing of game-like elements is instead where we should be focusing significant attention regarding gaming in general, rather than constantly emphasising negative aspects such as addiction. Maybe then we can seek to develop a rigorous scale of gamer behaviour, one that includes both the detriments and benefits of focused game play: even ultimately questioning whether the game addiction paradigm is necessary in terms of clinical definition and treatment. As Dr Tam states:

There is no simple, single way of ‘controlling’ or ‘treating’ 21st century problems such as internet addiction or video game addiction. Only a full, open and informed discussion by all stakeholders (parents, schools, opinion leaders, games & tech companies, teenagers) will have a lasting impact on this challenging problem. A purely ‘mental health’ perspective is insufficient; also taking account of social, evolutionary, technological, educational and increasingly political and philosophical factors will be imperative. （source:thenextweb）