It's possible the near-future will be defined by the availability of things we'd fantastically enjoy, but we'd be wiser to refuse.
Some indulgences are worth it, and relatively easy to confirm as safe. But with the obesity and opioid epidemics, I think it's past time to say many indulgences are very clearly not safe. Video games are good enough that >1% of people are overly-attracted to them, and would be wiser to refuse than indulge, and that percentage is going up every year (as are the percentage of people using games harmlessly – at least for now, but if culture is saturated with video game players matched efficiently with games they'd like, it seems over-use would continue the rise).
Puritanical ideals will get some marginal advantage, but I think they lack the deeper wisdom to determine when things are too much and when they aren't – but if general appealing-but-negative things are a bigger risk, a blanket refusal becomes a bit more useful.
I've struggled for years to wrap my head around precisely how we should look at stuff like this. Somewhat awkwardly, I think the solution is just to have better role models. Not abstract media figures, but people you know well enough to get groceries with, who you can model your life after. If you can trust them to be good people, useful to the world, kind and honest, you can just copy them. And if you see them e.g. playing more games and it makes you think less of them, then it lets you avoid them more, seeing the danger in others more clearly than we see it in ourselves.
Of course, we need stronger communities and community leaders for this to work, but it's no surprise, that's been pretty important for a while.