Question

Why video games can be good
Games can help you think better and solve problems. Some games make you plan, set goals, and work through puzzles.Multiplayer games can teach teamwork and communication because you have to talk and cooperate with other players.
Lots of kids use games to hang out with friends, especially when they can’t meet in person.Some games get you moving. “Exergames” (like motion or VR games) make you physically active and can be fun in gym class or after school.

Some games are made to keep you playing and spending money. They use tricks like random rewards and tiny purchases (microtransactions) that can be addictive.
Experts have said extreme gaming can become a real health problem for a few people. So we need to be careful.Use only games that teach, encourage teamwork, or get kids moving. Don’t use games that have predatory microtransactions, loot boxes, or designs that push people to play too much.

Use games in lessons about social skills, digital safety, and gym class. For example, use cooperative games for teamwork practice and strategy games in math.Teach students how games try to influence behavior and money so they can spot risky designs.


Have clear time limits, scheduled sessions, and let students opt in so gaming doesn’t replace sleep, homework, or hanging out in person.Start with a pilot program and measure things like mood, how connected kids feel, and fitness improvements before expanding. Make sure kids without gaming systems at home can still join so it doesn’t make gaps worse. Have adults supervise online play and enforce safety rules to cut down on harassment or mean behavior.



Teach a short lesson about how some commercial games try to get you to spend money so students understand the risks.

Video games can help with social skills, thinking, and even fitness — but only if schools pick the right games and set smart rules. I recommend starting with a small, closely supervised program that focuses on learning and health, and that teaches kids how to stay safe from addictive or money-focused game features. site evidence from
“I Make Video Games. I Won't Let My Daughters Play Them.”

Written by: William Siu

In 2009, I co-founded Storm8, a video game developer. I have launched more than 50 mobile games. These have been downloaded more than a billion times and have generated more than $1 billion in sales.

I am very familiar with game addiction, as that’s what I thought about every day for more than a decade. (We sold the company in 2020.) I hired product managers and engineers to track everything players did and analyze their behavior. Using the data we collected, we experimented with every feature of our games to see which versions allowed us to extract the most time and money from our players. For us, game addiction was by design: It meant success for our business.

Answer 1

Here’s a tightened version of your piece that explicitly cites evidence from William Siu’s opinion piece, plus a short reference you can use.

Why video games can be good
- Games can improve thinking and problem-solving: many require planning, setting goals, and working through puzzles. Strategy games can reinforce math and logic skills in class.
- Multiplayer games can teach teamwork and communication because players must coordinate, negotiate, and adapt.
- Games help kids stay socially connected when they can’t meet in person; many use them to hang out with friends.
- Some games get you moving. “Exergames” (motion or VR titles) can promote physical activity and work well in gym class or after school.

But some games are designed to keep people playing and spending
- As William Siu, co-founder of mobile developer Storm8, explains, many commercial mobile games were explicitly optimized to extract time and money from players: his teams “tracked everything players did and analyzed their behavior” and experimented with features to find which versions “allowed us to extract the most time and money” (Siu, “I Make Video Games. I Won’t Let My Daughters Play Them.”). He says game addiction in those products “was by design.”
- Storm8’s experience included mass distribution (more than a billion downloads) and large revenue (more than $1 billion), showing how powerful these design and monetization techniques can be.

Implications for schools
- Use only games that have clear educational, social, or physical benefits. Avoid commercial games with predatory microtransactions, loot boxes, or designs that encourage compulsive play.
- Teach students how games try to influence behavior and spending so they can recognize risky designs and make informed choices. A short, focused lesson about microtransactions, randomized rewards, and how companies A/B-test features is valuable.
- Use cooperative games to practice teamwork and communication; use strategy/puzzle games in math and logic lessons; use exergames in PE.
- Protect equity: make sure students without home gaming systems can still participate.
- Supervise online play and enforce safety rules to reduce harassment and toxic behavior.

Program design and evaluation
- Start with a small pilot, opt-in participation, and clear time limits and scheduled sessions so gaming doesn’t replace sleep, homework, or in-person social time.
- Measure outcomes before scaling: mood/engagement, social connectedness, and fitness gains; also track any increase in problematic use or spending pressure.
- Have adults present during online sessions, and teach digital-safety and privacy rules.

Short takeaway
Video games can support social skills, higher-order thinking, and fitness — but the benefits depend on careful game selection, explicit teaching about persuasive monetization, and clear program rules. William Siu’s insider account underscores why schools should avoid commercially optimized, monetization-driven titles and teach students how those designs work.

Reference
- Siu, William. “I Make Video Games. I Won’t Let My Daughters Play Them.” The New York Times (Opinion). William Siu describes his work at Storm8, the company’s use of user-tracking and experiments to maximize time and revenue, and his concerns about addictive, monetization-driven game design. (Search the New York Times opinion archives for the full article.)