On the third day of the "National Mourning Day", an outrageous incident occurred: a woman from Liaoning province cursed at people from the disaster areas. The reason for her cursing was that all public entertainment activities had to be stopped for these three days, and as a result, the game "Audition" had to cease operation. Can you determine from the video which sentence mentioned "Audition", and can you confirm that this woman is a player of "Audition"? Therefore, the profit model of online games and their harm to teenagers have once again become the focus of discussion. If you don't talk about it, it probably won't become a focal topic.
Some people believe that "Audition" has achieved great commercial success in China due to its strong hormonal atmosphere. Online games represented by it bear heavy "original sins" and increasingly serious "evils". I really want to know what original sin "World of Warcraft" represents? Moreover, is there anything in this world that doesn't carry original sin? God said: man is born with sin. So, you also have sin! But do you admit that you have sin? I will tell you, you have committed (the seven deadly sins).
1: Gluttony: commenting without knowing anything, like gluttony that only knows how to eat but never distinguish what to eat. However, you spit instead of eating.
2: Greed: fame and wealth are what you pursue.
3: Sloth: you are too lazy to distinguish the truth or find the truth.
4: Lust: coexisting with greed, the ultimate goal of pursuing fame and wealth is to exchange for color and sex.
5: Envy: you desire to be famous because there are too many people in this industry who are more famous than you, so you are jealous of them, so you rush out to make everyone pay attention to you.
6: Wrath: if you get angry after reading the above few points, that's good, you have committed wrath, but it also shows that you are still a person.
7: Pride: if you don't get angry after reading the above few points, that's good, you are very proud, but it also shows that you are still a person.
After the incident, the voices criticizing "Audition" were getting higher and higher. Some netizens even thought that "Audition" "induced teenagers to have one-night stands, leading to their introverted personalities", and suggested relevant departments ban it.
After the incident? Please ask how this target is positioned? Throughout the entire event, the traces of human manipulation are too obvious. To put it bluntly, this is a blatant act of unfair competition.
Let's experience the "Audition" mm. This online game is almost ignored in its native South Korea and was introduced to China in 2005. But when this online game came to China, it was loved by some young female internet users because of its simple and relaxing characteristics. Thus, the popularity of "Audition" soared rapidly, and the number of concurrent online users exceeded one million.
The selling point of this game is: "booking a room" and "getting married". After male and female players reach an agreement, they can "book a room" to dance; those who are compatible can "get married"; after "marriage", if the "couple relationship breaks down", they can get "divorced" at any time. (May I ask, which casual online game doesn't have "booking a room"? Even for playing mahjong or having dinner, I need to reserve a room beforehand. When it comes to booking a room, since we are many, both men and women, according to your logic, aren't you implying that we are engaging in group sex?)
Some viewpoints say: the "dance costumes" purchased with money in the game are flashy and even sexy, directly arousing the vague curiosity and immature desires of teenagers whose hearts have just begun to bloom. Many virtual "room bookings" and "marriages" on the internet eventually evolve into reality; many virtual "divorces" on the internet eventually evolve into real-life "saying goodbye after a one-night stand." (May I ask, is this limited to online games? According to your logic, everything can be banned because I can always find reasons to say that these things will cause the consequences you mentioned. For example, QQ and MSN can engage in passionate video chats and develop offline relationships. Mobile phones can receive mass-distributed pornographic messages and can even directly call someone for a one-night stand. Televisions and DVD players can watch pornographic films, and computers can also watch them, etc., do I need to give examples for each one?)
Thus, netizens habitually associate this game with glaring words like "one-night stand," and related negative events keep cropping up. SO, thus, are the netizens you refer to like you? Do you like to demonize certain things?
In the "Audition Chit-chat" section of the "Audition" forum homepage, there are a large number of posts by young female players "pouring out their feelings": some hate being abandoned by their "husbands" after a "one-night stand," while others inexplicably miss the "husbands" who toyed with their emotions. Here, "sex" seems to have already replaced the game itself. You can see more on other websites' forums. Should I give you the address? Actually, if you take a stroll around Tianya, you'll find that there are quite a few people there too. Should Tianya be banned as well? Oh, right, there's also Mopu and Kuandai Mountain. Should these places be banned as well?
There are also netizens who summarize the process of the "Audition" game as follows: "Getting to know mm - long chat mm - marry mm - meet mm - go to bed mm - break up mm - say goodbye mm." Everything before "marriage" happens in the virtual world of the internet, and everything after "meeting" happens in real life.
So, may I ask what the process is in real life? Isn't it getting to know - long chat - meeting - going to bed - breaking up - saying goodbye, except that the marriage procedure is optional. In today's society, the step of marriage is originally dispensable.
At the same time, there are netizens who say: The sale of "private ad space" by "Audition" has transformed the main function of the "horn" into a "very yellow and violent bulletin board" where netizens publicly insult "rivals" or openly recruit "one-night stand" partners. The "same-city dating" function set up by the online game company indirectly guides the "one-night stand" between teenage male and female players.
Regarding this, the response from the online game company is: We just provide a platform, and the bad behavior of netizens is unrelated to the game itself. Online games can be understood as a leisure platform, a socializing platform. Game companies cannot interfere with the private behavior of netizens, especially offline behavior. Can you interfere? Let me give you a simple example: A man and a woman use the QQ platform for a one-night stand transaction. Do you think Tencent should intervene? Is it realistic? Besides, let me give you an insider tip: The number of one-night stand transactions conducted through QQ far exceeds the number facilitated by a single online game. It can be said that adding up all the one-night stand occurrences in all online games doesn't come close to the number of one-night stands that occur daily through QQ. Should you consider banning QQ? (Don't say I'm diverting the topic with QQ; the chat system in the game isn't even as good as QQ.)
Can the statements of online game companies hold water?
Free Man's view is: Although the statement of online game companies is indeed very "Tai Chi," this statement is also easily refutable: Tai Chi? Ha, I sell kitchen knives. If someone uses my knife to kill another person, should I still bear responsibility?
Nowadays, social ideologies are becoming increasingly diversified, which is an unavoidable reality. Even without online games similar to "Audition," incidents of "one-night stands" will still happen among teenagers. However, online games like "Audition" with their "luring enemies deeper" style of step-by-step "guidance" are directly influencing teenagers whose thoughts are not yet mature and whose worldviews are not yet formed. Things like the transformation of the "horn" function, the subtleties of the "same-city dating" function, and the game process from getting acquainted to saying goodbye all play the role of "pushers." How does it guide? I really want to know. The original intention of the horn was a wide-range broadcast prop. How players use it is their private behavior. Does this private behavior violate laws and regulations? Since players have paid, and haven't violated laws and regulations, merchants have the obligation to protect consumers' rights and no authority to interfere with their behavior (you should know about consumer rights). The subtleties of the same-city dating function? This makes me sweat profusely. Forums also have same-city sections, and QQ friend searches also have same-city options. This feature doesn't seem to be pioneered by online games, does it? According to your logic, shouldn't everything be banned?
Look at the "honors" that netizens have "awarded" to "Audition," such as "China's largest matrimonial agency," "Best one-night stand game," "Easiest website to pick up girls," etc. The statements of online game companies naturally fall apart. Without people like you demonizing all online games behind the scenes, would online games be as chaotic as they are now? Most netizens are guided. Ask them yourself, how many of them have really tried one-night stands and posted to boast about it, making it seem real, but in reality? It's just vanity. The crowd psychology explained in "The Crowd" well explains this behavior. If a post starts by saying something is good, at least 70% of viewers will agree and follow the trend to say it's good, only those who have truly used it can give an objective evaluation.
Some viewpoints say: "If there were no such online games, at least a considerable part of teenagers wouldn't have fallen into decline; if there were no such online games, they would continue to live in confusion until one day, when their minds matured, a positive and upward philosophy of life would lead them to a positive and upward righteous path." Brother, when we played single-player games back then, it was the same rhetoric. Are people like you tired? More than ten years ago, electronic games were demonized in the same way, and what was the result? Now, single-player games have become one of the 99 sports recognized by the General Administration of Sport. Now, the same argument is being used against online games, and it's unbearable.
Free Man strongly agrees with this viewpoint.
At the same time, Free Man believes: We should calmly look at online games. For those online games that are healthy in content and educational, we should give full affirmation and support, but for those that use "high technology" and "green industry" as pretenses, sacrificing the lives of teenagers to extract black or yellow profits, we should resolutely resist! It appears fair, but in fact, it is stifling an entire industry. Online games are entertainment products. The so-called healthy and educational online games you speak of are probably suitable only for six-year-old children? (Just look at Chinese animation; whenever someone mentions animated series, older people say it's for kids, unaware that animation is for all age groups.) When will the deep-rooted flaws of the Chinese people change? Do you know why South Koreans can be so arrogant? Because online games have brought enormous profits to South Korea and have become one of the three pillar industries of their country. Why does China have to introduce South Korean online games? Because the development of Chinese online games is slow. Why is it slow? Because there are too many people like you. Years ago, when games were demonized, the entire Chinese gaming industry was strangled in its infancy. Now, you're demonizing online games again. Do you hope to strangle the entire online gaming industry?
Finally, I ask: how much money did you receive? Don't deny it. We're all insiders in the industry. I've been in this circle for N years. The unwritten rules like transportation allowances have long been too obvious to hide anymore. Let me leave you with one sentence: without investigation, there is no right to speak. Since you've taken the money, you should at least be professional and entertaining. Truly, you lack both professionalism and entertainment value.