Should there be an age limit for online play?

[Jason]

Bit of a hypothetical question here, but suppose there was some piece of technology that allowed companies to effectively prevent anyone below a certain age playing online, would you be in favour of it, and what age would you consider a reasonable cut-off point?

Personally, as much as I hate generalisation, stereotyping and blanket censorship, I probably would be in favour of preventing online access to players below the age of 13.

My main reason for this is nothing to do with reasons of maturity, intelligence or ability (I'm sure I've had my ass kicked by plenty of 12 year olds online over the years...), but more to do with lifestyle. In my eyes, at that age, there are so many better things you should be doing with your life than sitting inside playing Modern Warfare 2 for six hours a night every night.
Yes, there is also a maturity issue there, but just as there are some very mature 12 year-olds out there, there are also some truly moronic 24-25 year olds. However, I'm finding it more and more common that I'm having to mute someone within three seconds of joining a lobby because they're squealing in a high-pitched voice about everyone being fags or something like that. Yes, it's unfair on those who are intelligent and respectful, but they seem to be in an increasing minority.

Controversial, I know... that's why I'm interested to see what views people have on it. :)

[CemeteryGates]

My opinion is similar to yours, but at the risk of sounding fascist, I'd probably raise that to 15. Like you said, such young minds have better things to do at that age than spend all their free time "pwning n00bz" on Modern Warfare 2 online. It would also contribute much to the online gaming quality to not be killed by a headshot with a pistol across the map as you respawn and then being loudly called a 'fag' by a high-pitched screech.

But even better than that, someone should create technology that would allow you to establish age limits for people you play online with. It would filter out those kids for those who don't wish to play with them.

[Betty]

At first I think "YES. no questions"
But then I rememebered ive actually come across a few 12 year olds who I actually dont mind playing with, in fact one of them is super cool and I love playing with him (he is HIGHlarious). Granted, they arent old enough to waste their life away yet-playing MW2 for HOURS...which they do. (Thats why I tell the ones I like to cherish their youth & not grow up lol)

Then theres the maturity issue....but thats what the mute/block/report buttons are for :)

Other than that - Because of my younger friends [and im probably going to let my little demon spawns play M rated games as soon as they can walk], Im on the fence about this issue :/

[Konrad]

No, I'm not in favor of it. I would however support using the same technology, and match people up in groups. 1-10 play together, 10-13 play together, 13-15 play together e.t.c...

[MyNameDidntFit]

Nah, that's a crock.

If there are better things to do at twelve years of age, then there are better things to do at thirty. Why should kids be forced to go outside and play on a swingset because a bunch of nostalgic old men remember doing that when they were kids?

It would also contribute much to the online gaming quality to not be killed by a headshot with a pistol across the map as you respawn
"contributing to gaming quality" = "remove all players above your skill level"?

[Konrad]

"contributing to gaming quality" = "remove all players above your skill level"?

"contributing to gaming quality" = "remove all players above your skill level" = "idea behind matchmaking"

[Betty]

A.K.A. Ragequitting...

[Rob]

Jason I like the idea and I would be all for it if there was a way to successfully implement it. Of course maturity does not always scale with age but lifestyles usually do. I'd have more to talk about with people that are in my age group and dealing with the blessings/problems that come along as the years roll on. If there was an option to sort by age and a verification system by credit card then I would try out a service like that.

[MyNameDidntFit]

"contributing to gaming quality" = "remove all players above your skill level" = "idea behind matchmaking"
Gaming is no fun if you can't find a challenge and task yourself with besting it. I've never much liked the whole matchmaking ideal.

[CemeteryGates]

If there are better things to do at twelve years of age, then there are better things to do at thirty. Why should kids be forced to go outside and play on a swingset because a bunch of nostalgic old men remember doing that when they were kids?

The first sentence could be a good point.
But I don't agree with the rest; it's proven that prolonged play will eventually do harm to your sight. I do wear glasses because of spending 13 hours playing a game with relative frequency.
Plus swings aren't the only alternative to having fun for kids, nor are playgrounds, or the outdoors as a whole.

"contributing to gaming quality" = "remove all players above your skill level"?

No, but people who camp just so they can score, add to stats obsessively, then call you a 'fag n00b' with a high-pitched screech when the game ends every match I try to play online doesn't sound like much fun, if you ask me, and that amounts to 95% of my online play with shooters.
If I get killed 32 times in a row and can't score a kill the whole game, but at least I get to run around, shoot at people, and actually play with the chance --remote as it may be-- of gradually improving my skills and the fun I'll have, then that's a completely different story.

[Jason]

I'll be honest, the biggest gripe I have with online play for kids of a certain age is that it seems to be (unintentionally) teaching them that if things aren't going your way, you can just give up and not face any penalty for it. Don't bother fighting for anything or working at it, just quit and go and find somewhere else where things are going your way. Follow the path of least resistance. Settle for less.
I'm not suggesting ragequitting is going to single-handedly destroy society, but I genuinely believe that the way someone behaves in-game is in some respects a mirror towards the way they act in real life, and if Little Johnny Virus aged 11 is playing Modern Warfare 2 and is able to just quit any time he likes without consequence, he's never going to learn how to deal with the experience of doing your best but losing, and learning from your mistakes. Instead, every time life kicks him in the bollocks, he's just going to think 'fuck it, I'll do something else' or throw a tantrum or something.

To take the thread off topic a little, this is why Britain has the problems it does at the moment, particularly in sport. Because now teachers are encouraged to teach that 'there are no winners and losers' in sports and so on, there's no competitive edge or desire, as there are no spoils for the winners, hence no reason to try harder to attain victory. As a result, we're mentally brittle, liable to fold when things aren't going our way. On the other hand, the Australians are highly competitive from a young age (so I'm lead to believe), and encouraged to take the rough with the smooth, that there's no shame in defeat to a better opponent, and you can really see that in their sports teams, as you can't kill the bastards with a sledgehammer. They're mentally tough as old boots (and as physically attractive - sorry MNDF, just couldn't be too nice... :P).

[MyNameDidntFit]

But I don't agree with the rest; it's proven that prolonged play will eventually do harm to your sight. I do wear glasses because of spending 13 hours playing a game with relative frequency.
Is it also proven that this only occurs in children under a certain age?

Plus swings aren't the only alternative to having fun for kids, nor are playgrounds, or the outdoors as a whole.
Of course not, there's also hopscotch, slides, trampolines, archery and porn. Which, might I add, are all things adults can also enjoy instead of gaming -- even if hopscotch may look a bit silly.

Hmm... perhaps we should restrict gaming to people under 18? After all, those above 18 should be working towards a better world. Why are you gaming when you could be collecting rubbish or volunteering at a homeless shelter? Seriously, there are just as many, if not more, better things for an adult to be doing instead of gaming.

No, but people who camp just so they can score, add to stats obsessively, then call you a 'fag n00b' with a high-pitched screech when the game ends every match I try to play online doesn't sound like much fun, if you ask me, and that amounts to 95% of my online play with shooters.
If I get killed 32 times in a row and can't score a kill the whole game, but at least I get to run around, shoot at people, and actually play with the chance --remote as it may be-- of gradually improving my skills and the fun I'll have, then that's a completely different story.
And what on earth does that have to do with children? Sure, some kids are damn good, but there are a hell of a lot more older players (late teens and beyond) that are just as good, or better.

What I'm saying here is this: the only valid argument for stopping children from playing a game is if they do not understand the game. Beyond that there is absolutely no more reason to stop a child playing a game than there is to stop an adult.

and you can really see that in their sports teams, as you can't kill the bastards with a sledgehammer.
Try telling that to our f***ing cricket team of late -_-

(ok, so maybe I shouldn't complain: our team is playing like utter dog's balls and they still win most matches >.>)

[CemeteryGates]

Is it also proven that this only occurs in children under a certain age?

Obviously not, but if you're going to take part in an activity that could potentially have long-term consequences or might harm you in some way, you should at least be an age where you're starting to become aware of that.
Like drinking alcohol. I'm against the drinking age being 18 or 21 in most of the world, and I know I certainly started drinking from much younger, but I also wouldn't give an 11-year-old a bottle. I wouldn't let them play video-games for more than 3 hours straight either.


Of course not, there's also hopscotch, slides, trampolines, archery and porn. Which, might I add, are all things adults can also enjoy instead of gaming -- even if hopscotch may look a bit silly.


No need to be sardonic.
12-year-olds could pick up a book or take up an instrument or another form of art. That's fun and will likely to more to make the kid a cultured person than spending 9 hours on Halo online will.


Hmm... perhaps we should restrict gaming to people under 18? After all, those above 18 should be working towards a better world. Why are you gaming when you could be collecting rubbish or volunteering at a homeless shelter? Seriously, there are just as many, if not more, better things for an adult to be doing instead of gaming.


I've never seen a homeless shelter in my whole country, much less in my city, but I do donate to charity often. In fact, I often give money I had originally saved for video-games and other such things, to charity.
The world isn't black or white, man. You can do both things, and much more. My point is that anything in excess is never a healthy thing.



And what on earth does that have to do with children? Sure, some kids are damn good, but there are a hell of a lot more older players (late teens and beyond) that are just as good, or better.


What does that have to do? That all the high-pitched voices calling you names after a game of being killed by campers belong to 11-13-year-old kids.
And it's the older and better players you speak of that I wrote of, perhaps killing you several times but not with cheap camping tactics, that allows the possibility of improving, the possibility of actual gameplay.




What I'm saying here is this: the only valid argument for stopping children from playing a game is if they do not understand the game. Beyond that there is absolutely no more reason to stop a child playing a game than there is to stop an adult.


I almost agree, but I stick to my argument that spending several hours on a video-game is not very healthy, for kids or adults, except an adult can say, "oh shit, I've been playing Fallout 3 for 6 hours, I gotta run and pay the rent". In my experience, many kids won't stop playing to go do their homework on their own. I know I didn't back then...



But anyway, it seems like we're not going to convince each other that our argument is right. It's just the diversity of opinion, so I think I'll leave it here.

[MyNameDidntFit]

I know you said you'll leave it here, but I just want to say one more thing, because I think we've left the original premise: stopping children under an age playing online games PERIOD -- not stopping them playing for excessive times, which is what you seem to be against.

No-one should really play games for excessive amounts of time, be they child or adult, but I'd still disagree with something that stopped that, too, because everyone should have the choice (within reason, obviously) as to what they do with their leisure time.