>>956507I understand where you are coming from, but I believe it's one of those cases where it depends on the person.
The people that buy these games all have the free will to do what they choose, correct? Now with that said you get the people with healthy habits that get hooked on games like these and say "I'll spend my next paycheck on gear so I can travel in real life like I do in this game." And they get to it, IF they liked it.
Now you get people like what
>>956873 said, the ones with bad life habits or just generally interested more in the fact that it's a "game" and not so much a "simulation". These people enjoy the concept, but can't be bothered to actually experience it for themselves. These type of people are probably not the type you'll want to run into while /out/ either way, and they're content with playing their games and experiencing the virtual concept of being in the "wilderness".
With that said, both types of people that simply didn't find the interest in the concept, will just stop playing.
I feel like this is actually very good, because it's a way to promote a lifestyle through a very common tool now adays: our computers. The people that experience these games will either choose 1. do it in real life 2. just stick with the game, and not bother anyone that does it in real life (since they won't be there).
I personally think it's a great way to encourage others to go out. Games like these have helped encourage my nephew to spend more time outside. What he does in a game, he mimics in my backyard when he comes over. In days with really bad weather, I sometimes watch him play and I've caught him googling some things that have interested him in the games (for example, he wanted to know why it took time to start up fires in the long dark and why he would fail sometimes, compared to minecraft where a fire starts immediately. I showed him some old videos on firemaking, and he was blown away at how it was in real life.
Food for thought.
