Not sure if this was linked in the thread, but here's an analysis of a paper linked to this same issue.

I don't think (video) gaming itself should be targeted, but certain (behavioural) patterns and conditioning that can be found in games, especially the examples of gacha and general f2p/mobile tactics. Gambling slots and card games like blackjack are specifically made and used for gambling, while video games can certainly have those elements but are overall something else entirely, whether that's the consensus or not.

Yep.

ps: waiting for the new weekly *soon to be added* games-a-ton. Feed the monsta, folks, feed it!! ;P

Not exactly. Its something about a substance or thing that makes it addictive. Gaming ''addiction'' is very dependent on the person, not as much on the substance. Ie most of us don't have this ''addiction''. I don't see even a small majority of people playing games having this. All this seems like is trying to stigmatize the hobby because some people can't understand that other people don't think like they do.

Maybe it's not that "everything can become an addiction", but "everything can become a problematic behavior".

Don't forget to check the links in that reddit post - it has the open letter itself ("Scholars' open debate paper on the World Health Organization ICD-11 Gaming Disorder proposal...") and the article that warns that there is no consensus on this topic ("Working towards...: A critical commentary on Petry et al (2014)"). Do check the comments too - people have added a lot of nice links on the topic.

Nor microtransations, nor loot boxes have a way to win spent money back though.
Do you mean those loot boxes that you have to pay for? Then: is it a "gamble", as in everyday, not clinical, usage of the word? You pay money and you don't know the outcome - sure! But unless one hooks it up to the service that will exchange the virtual prizes for the real ones or for the money, it's not a "gambling" in the more strict definition.
That said, it doesn't make microtransations or loot boxes less annoying.

There's a whole 20+ people letter and a critical commentary were linked arguing against that.

They sure have some big plans for just giving it a name: The OP from reddit (in the end of the thread) provides a different view on it (starts with "I know that technically there shouldn't be anything bad about a diagnosis code." and the next few posts).

It's like you never heard of the Steam Marketplace.

At that stage, is it even gaming and not all-out gambling? Keep in mind that gambling is already classified in the ICD and its entirely possible that some games do have some sort of crate mechanic that is compliant with the ICD definition. But even then, it is just gambling included in a game. This proposed classification is about classifying ''excessive'' gaming itself.

If this was something about looking into the gambling scene that may exist around some games, then I have no problem. But this isn't that. This is basically creating a new disorder, separate from gambling about gaming itself, not gambling based on very flimsy evidence and ignoring many legitimate criticisms.

I was addressing his specific quote on gaming being inherently different from gambling by showing how the characteristics used to differentiate gambling are indeed present in many games.

The potential of games at large being addictive is a whole different matter to discuss, but I do think it's perfectly capable of occuring and focusing solely on the potential monetary gain of gambling as the factor driving addiction to be very narrow-minded. It forgets to account for the unique aspects of gaming, particularly its intrinsic motivation and reward systems, especially in multiplayer games. People may gamble for money in real life in order to buy a car, a house, a pool, etc. to impress others, but in games they either pay for lootboxes and microtransactions with real money, or grind and pay for it with their time, in order to obtain a skin, a weapon, a mount, etc. Monetary rewards don't need to be a part of the system if the person is obtaining directly that which they want in order to increase their status in the community.

When I was talking about "hooks it up to the service", I was referring to the skin gambling that's going through Valve API and similar things; although with less clear examples it might be more complicated.

Keep in mind (and like the Shadowstalker16 said), that is not the (edited) gameplay/gaming itself. Loot boxes or card packs or the similar themselves, even for money, without a way to get their value out of the game - an external service - are not gambling. Skin gambling, on the other hand, is a pure gambling - it has no relation to the proposed Gaming Disorder. Let's look at it from another angle: if someone will put a casio in the game that's connected to the real one and allows to place bets/receive prizes with real money, that won't be about the discussed Gaming Disorder.

I do understand the idea you were talking about, but with the topic being about explicitly ICD's GD and my English being garbage - today especially - it's hard to express.

They aren't really unique to gaming. Many things in life have a motivation/reward systems - work, masturbation and even relationships. We can argue about "instant gratification", but then we'll drown in abstraction levels and finding out if a many-hours grind is an "instant gratification".

Look at the Wood's arguments again - people also start working in order to buy a car, a house and etc. There is no such "chase the losses" in work/gaming, no tolerance caveats and etc.

But gambling disorder is not really about increasing one's status in the community (see the previous paragraph).

I can't help but being reminded about a paper form one researcher that cautioned, that reclassifying gambling into an behavioral addiction in DSM-V can open the door to the "fad diagnosis" (term from the paper) of sex, shopping and etc. addictions. At first I thought about the "slippery slope" fallacy, but now I see more and more "gambling is here, then why not the (insert a thing here) is?" types of arguments.

BTW, "pathological gambling" in ICD-10 was under "Disorders of adult personality and behavior/Impulse disorders", and in DSM-IV - under "Impulse Control Disorders Not Elsewhere Classified", beside compulsive hair pulling, kleptomania and etc. Reclassification of gambling as an addictive disorder in DSM has occurred in DSM-V (the year of release - 2013). It seems like the inclusion of gambling as "addictive behavior" in ICD will also be (relatively) new.

That's exactly the point I made. It's not gambling, it's gaming, but it has the exact same things he said in it. It makes money a factor in playing the games, and the different reward tiers available create the same feeling where small rewards become irrelevant and the player must invest more and more time grinding, or more and more money, in order to achieve the bigger rewards.

Money is just paper, it doesn't have any intrinsic value beyond what we confer to it, giving it its buying power. Similarly a legendary weapon skin in a game that you got for grinding for 10 hours technically doesn't have any value, but its the community status that comes with it, and the ability to sell it for real money on the Steam Marketplace (which was why I brought it up and not the outside case of skin roulettes online), that turn that weapon skin into a real prize with a real world value attached to it, whether you choose to sell it or not.

Working does not have the same motivation and reward systems as gambling and gaming. The former is simply a task you must complete and cares little for whether or not you enjoy doing it, the latter are built to make you feel like you're having fun and to make you want to keep playing. Gaming can be particular egregious with that with the myriad of Skinner Box Techniques it often employs to drive up player engagement, that scratch that same itch of luck and infrequent rewards that gambling does and work does not, that for some reason our brains like so much.

Finally, gaming absolutely has a "chase the losses" factor in the form of a sunken cost fallacy. People are incapable of finishing a level in Candy Crush, or beating a boss in a MMO, the game offers them an extra move, or a handful of potions to give them a second wind. If they then take the game up on it and still aren't able to overcome that challenge they are at a crossroads: either they accept that even though they got closer to their goal that the money they just spent was ultimately for nothing and has been lost, or they buy yet more microtransactions in the hope that now they might achieve that goal retroactively trying to make previous purchases worth it.

Please, do not equate the game progression with tolerance. The only reason the small rewards become irrelevant as the game proceeds is because the gameplay dictates so, not because they actually lost their value for the player in the context of the whole game. Start a new game in a different save file and after some time (or, most likely, immediately) the "less exciting" rewards will suddenly become what player wants again - otherwise the games wouldn't have the same replayability as they have. Roguelikes are a fine example of that, although they're usually not big on the whole "different save file" part :) Even getting a lower-than-the-other-character's-tier-class weapon for the new (not main) character in an MMO can be exciting, as it will be a great help on the level the player currently is with this character.

If you wish to continue the line of thoughts about the "community/social status", then this "addiction" will turn into a mere problematic-behavior-due-to-social-situation-problem. Indeed, for many the social environment - online friends - is the reason to play more or to engage in social networks more ("Facebook/Internet addiction", anyone?).

The fact that the different things can acquire at least personal value is not debatable - it's true. Personal investment can play a big role in behaviors. But there's the difference between money and time, points and etc. - it's the difference in resources: they are not equal. While drawing parallels is possible, completely equating them ("has the exact same things") - isn't. Careless operations on money can easily create debt, and the "solution" for this debt for the gambler is obvious - to gamble more. You can't chase losses with time - the time is spent, gone, it can't be brought or gamed back (but see further). "Locked up" money or points can't be used as a mechanism to get out of debts. Spending more time on a game, compared to spending more money on bets, doesn't lead to tolerance, nor do you have a tolerance to gaming experience (do not mistake boredom for it!) or meaningful in the current context gaming rewards. It doesn't directly translates to bigger excitement out of the amount of the time spent - not like with the money bets example. And the "withdrawal" concept that we didn't really talked about doesn't fit with the gaming all that well (see the "Working towards... A critical commentary..." (referenced above), "Trajectories of abstinence-induced Internet gaming withdrawal symptoms: A prospective pilot study" by Dean Kaptsis et al. and "Craving for internet games? Withdrawal symptoms from an 84-h abstinence from Massively Multiplayer Online Gaming." by Daniel Luke King et al.).
In a similar way, gambling with imaginary points strictly in the context of the game doesn't have the same impact as gambling with real money - even if you pour money to get imaginary points.

Correction: for "Steam money". Without the third party they stay within Steam. You can create a debt with it, but not to cover it. But it's a different conversation, because again, the concept of selling stuff or a social status has nothing to do with the "gaming" that the research and ICD's item are talking about.

I've also mentioned "masturbation" and "relationship" (you can add "sex" to that) - your example does not fit them. They also have intrinsic rewards and motivations. I would also argue, that the mentioned in the previous paragraph "grinding" can be deliberately made to be not that fun to make you spent more money on the game. From the "Craving for...": Media is demonizing the operant condition chamber so much, so I'm relieved that you know that it's about "engagement" and not "addict-making machines".

Maybe not "infrequent", but "irregular"? You are pointing to engagement techniques that gambling, gaming, a lot of tabletop gaming, D&D gaming and some aspects of real life share in one way or another. As you know, engagement techniques by themselves do not equal to "behavior leading to addiction".

I want to point out, that the "Working towards...: A critical commentary..." paper reports that: In other words, we might stuck arguing about rewards and excitement when they are not even that relevant in the discussion of "Gaming Disorder"!

You are mixing together two different mechanisms. In the first one they try to get the spent resources back (cover the resource debt). In the second the resources they have already spent are never going back to them, fallacy or not. And no, time does not equal money here - you can't get back time you've spent. Here you talk more about an engagement technique.

Keep in mind, that the "Craving..." paper actually does draw parallels with "chasing" in a different from yours way and contrary to my previous statements: but I point your attention that the "financial loss from not being able to utilize subscription gaming services" (note that the "Norm" means "he/she does not meet the Internet Gaming Disorder criteria") and "the break had me very invested in catching up on the games I haven't played" sound just like they came from someone having a Netflix subscription, if you replace "gaming"/"games" and "playing" with "TV series" and "watching". It's also not used the same way the Wood has described it - to solve a problem created by the behavior, to close the loop. It doesn't necessary signify chasing, as those researchers have theoreticized - and even "I have to play more to make up for lost time in taking a break" might refer to "daily quests", missed events and etc. - engagement techniques.

The WHO, UN, EU can all go to hell. Just what the world needs, more unelected globalist bureaucrats trying to dictate and impose on the rest of the world.

Hopefully, we get the bill passed here in the US and withhold all of our UN funding. US funds account for 22% of all UN funds and we are not allowed a say in where the funds are allocated. BS to that, I say no more American peacekeepers, no more American vehicles or equipment. We just need to cut funding entirely and let the WHO and UN choke to death.

Anything can be an addiction. He's always drawing and doodling and not paying attention in class, he's a workaholic, he's always playing his instrument, etc., etc., etc.

That's a misunderstanding it I think. Disorder as I understand it only applies if you do it really excessively and if you yourself suffer from it. The purpose is to help these people get a more balanced life, something they must want for themselves, not stigmatizing anything. Whether gaming is seen as a worthwhile hobby or not is probably something society decides as a whole. Dragging the medical profession into it might not improve things at all.
LOL This is totally unrelated to the thread topic.

Is there a reading comprehension disorder or would this be stigmatizing?

Have you read the open letter and the GD proposal text? "Abundant false-positive cases", "negative medical, scientific, public-health, societal, and human rights fallout", "addictive behavior", "limiting availability", "restrictions", "Disorders due to addictive behaviours" (as in classification of gaming as "addictive behavior" and all consequences of it)? That's not a misunderstanding - the letter and the proposals were not written by nobodies - people who wrote them knew what they are talking about.

Medical professionals in ICD-11 Beta Draft has decided to classify it as an "addictive behavior" and is already writing about "appropriate policy responses that are analogous to those directed at the reduction of disorders due to substance use" (see above), putting it in the same basket as gambling or tobacco or alcohol industry. If there's something about "dragging", then they drag themselves here by their own will.

It is done on questionable grounds in the first place. See the article in the OP where like 20 or so scholars / researchers point out the negatives of such classification. The fact remains that in depth research is yet to be done on this topic. Keep in mind the ICD is a manual which is used as a universal guide to the symptoms and possible treatments of real diseases, both biological and psychological.

We still have no information as to what even constitutes ''gaming disorder''. We can talk about in layman's terms, but we do not not the essential constituents or to what boundaries it extends to. Ie does excessive playing of sports games count (because somehow physical games aren't ''addictive'')? Is playing singleplayer games for long periods gaming disorder? When does it stop being a coping method and become a disorder? What separates a person with gaming disorder from a frequent player that does not have it? Do all esport players have it? Do game streamers who stream for extended periods have it? None of these questions can be answered, yet it will be put in a manual that describes stuff like symptoms and transmission methods of cholera and AIDS. At that point, its more about conforming to an internal prejudice of a raging MMO player than an actual diagnostic tool.

Think of it like this, its like putting some unproven herbal remedy into a list of otherwise reliable and working medicines. The fact that it may not even work won't deter people from thinking it will, because its in a list with actual medicine. This is just that but with diagnosis rather than cure.

No, read whole post. It clearly talks about how these entities work, and how anything can be addictive. Taking only the first part is a nice way to distort what is said.