Pokemon Go got a lot of negative rep when it came out but I were quite (positively) surprised that local kids that used to sit at cafe with friends, not talking to each other for hours glued to their phone, now was walking around parks talking to each other glued to their phone. Funny how the negative consequences was mostly among adults (that can drive) and the behavior change among kids was pretty positive.<p>That said I also remember heartwarming messages from Parents with autistic kids that for their first time in their life had something <i>they could do together outside</i> and interact with their kids.<p>So I'm surprised it still gets a lot of negative rep.
Was analyzing the statistics to proof my point, which was "there are not so many people playing this kind of games, so the risk is manageable".<p>After I saw the statistics (Hope I got everything right), which are:<p><pre><code> - Pokemon Go: over 2.2m comments, 4.3 stars on Google Play Store
- Ingress: over 0.1m comments, 3.6 stars on Google Play Store
- Minecraft: over 1.1m comments, 4.6 stars on Google Play Store
- Call of Duty: over 1.4m comments, 4.5 stars on Google Play Store
- Clash Royale: over 1.8m comments, 4.2 stars on Google Play Store
- Roblox: over 4.6m comments, 4.5 stars on Google Play Store
- GTA: over 0.99m reviews, "Very Positive" on Steam
- CS: GO: over 5.6m reviews, "Very Positive" on Steam
- Apex Legends: over 0.23m reviews, "Very Positive" on Steam
- PUBG: 1.4m over reviews, "Mixed" on Steam
- DOTA: 1.5m over reviews, "Very Positive" on Steam
</code></pre>
Oh boy, Pokemon Go really wasn't "just a small game nobody plays" after all.
Just briefly went through the paper, the model seems overly simplistic to make this extraordinary claim. Plus, they are not looking at confounding factors, time of day, etc, etc... If you want to prove that one variable is stronger than others, you need to include more than one variable...
This is also a problem in the foraging community. Once you have the ability to identify all the mushrooms and trees while driving at highway speed, it's a very difficult to just turn it off.
It goes further than just games, of course. Many otherwise sensible people believe they can use their phones while driving — often making up rules like “it’s OK if I’m in heavy traffic” or “it’s OK if I’m waiting at the light,” as though they aren’t at best losing situational awareness and contributing to traffic even in that scenario.
Think about this when you are making any app that is used on mobile, esp if it helps someone get to a destination.<p>Think about that for a second.<p>Seemingly innocuous changes in UX for a maps app can literally kill people, either inside or outside of the car.<p>Gives a whole new meaning to an A/B test.
(2017), and posted multiple times before, but only one such thread that I found had any comments on it -- just one here:<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16423434" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16423434</a>
you can't catch any pokemon from within in a moving car (the pokemon just puff and disappear while on the move, it used to upset my daughter when she was into this stuff), so what is the point of looking at the pokemon screen while driving?
The closest I've come to this is that my daughter who often plays this in the car while I'm driving can no longer assist me with navigation and other sundry help which I miss and means I guess my driving is slightly more distracted without the help.
For reference here's footage of a Pokemon player hitting a police car (2016) <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dD51pg9iTN8" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dD51pg9iTN8</a>
TLDR the app isn't the problem, people are the problem. Pokemon GO is demonstrative, not exclusive, marking high enough sample data to show that humans are not capable of doing many things at once.
Sounds like Darwin award material. But seriously, those who can't survive the sea change of digital onslaught are eliminated from gene pool. Do the evolution.
56 pages. back in the 80s and earlier, papers were much shorter. It's not like the claim being made here necessitates such a long paper compared to earlier studies.