From: rssfeeds@jmason.org  Mon Oct  7 12:05:13 2002
Return-Path: <rssfeeds@example.com>
Delivered-To: yyyy@localhost.example.com
Received: from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1])
	by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 439B016F20
	for <jm@localhost>; Mon,  7 Oct 2002 12:03:51 +0100 (IST)
Received: from jalapeno [127.0.0.1]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for jm@localhost (single-drop); Mon, 07 Oct 2002 12:03:51 +0100 (IST)
Received: from dogma.slashnull.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by
    dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g9780nK23290 for
    <jm@jmason.org>; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 09:00:49 +0100
Message-Id: <200210070800.g9780nK23290@dogma.slashnull.org>
To: yyyy@example.com
From: gamasutra <rssfeeds@example.com>
Subject: Designer's Notebook: Stop Calling Games "Addictive"!
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 08:00:48 -0000
Content-Type: text/plain; encoding=utf-8
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-927.0 required=5.0
	tests=AWL,T_NONSENSE_FROM_40_50
	version=2.50-cvs
X-Spam-Level: 

URL: http://www.newsisfree.com/click/-0,8613676,159/
Date: 2002-10-06T18:12:44+01:00

We in the game industry know what we mean when we say that a game is 
"addictive." We think that quality in a game is a good thing: people like it, 
they keep coming back to it, and they want to play it more and more. I agree 
that it's a good thing. If a game has that quality, then it's probably a darn 
good game. But using the word "addiction" to describe that quality does us no 
favors with the general public.


