A few decades ago, the question didn't arise. Children played with wooden blocks, dolls, toy cars, Lego. Outside when the weather was nice, inside when it rained. Then screens arrived — first television, then consoles, then tablets, smartphones, and now virtual reality headsets and smart assistants. Today, every parent faces a dilemma their own parents never knew: how much to let screens into their child's life, and do traditional toys still have their place?
This debate is often presented as a battle between two camps: on one side, those nostalgic for wooden games and mud, on the other, technophiles convinced that digital is the future. The truth, as often, is much more nuanced, and much more interesting.
Why traditional toys remain irreplaceable
Let's start with toys. Not because they are superior, but because they deserve a reminder of what they truly bring, far from nostalgic or moralizing discourse.
Physical play develops body and mind simultaneously
When a four-year-old stacks blocks, they're not "just playing." They're developing fine motor skills, a sense of balance, an intuitive understanding of physics — gravity, center of mass, stability. When they knock everything over and start again, they learn perseverance without being taught the word. When they build a tower with another child, they negotiate, share, and communicate.
Educational research is clear on this point: free, unstructured play with physical objects is one of the best learning environments for young children. Psychologists call this "symbolic play" or "pretend play." A spoon becomes a sword, a cardboard box becomes a castle, a sheet thrown over two chairs becomes a fort. In this world of pure imagination, the child is screenwriter, actor, and director all at once.
Toys leave a unique memory imprint
Ask any adult what their favorite toy was as a child. The answer almost always comes immediately, accompanied by a smile. That worn teddy bear, that construction set always missing a piece, that second-hand red bicycle. Physical toys anchor themselves in sensory memory — the smell of warm plastic, the texture of a plush toy, the sound of a miniature train on its tracks. They become emotional landmarks, sometimes passed down through generations.
A physical object occupies real space in a child's life. It's there in the morning, it's there in the evening. It can be hugged, lost under a sofa, joyfully rediscovered. This concrete presence has a value that digital doesn't truly reproduce, or at least not in the same way.
Toys encourage face-to-face social play
A game of Uno around a table, a board game in the evening, a game of marbles in the yard — these shared moments create connections in a way that online play doesn't fully replace. The child learns to read their peers' expressions, to manage the frustration of a live defeat, to feel the collective joy of a shared victory.
Board games, in fact, have seen a spectacular resurgence in recent years. In 2025, the global board game market surpassed that of mobile games in terms of new titles published for the first time. Titles like Wingspan, Pandemic, Mysterium, and Dobble are now found in millions of homes, and the trend shows no sign of slowing down in 2026.
What screens truly offer (and is often underestimated)
It's easy to demonize screens. Alarmist headlines multiply, contradictory studies accumulate, and many parents find themselves in permanent guilt as soon as their child touches a tablet. But on closer inspection, the reality is much more complex.
Not all screens are created equal
This is the first fundamental point, and it is often neglected in public debate. There is an abysmal difference between a six-year-old passively watching autoplay YouTube videos for three hours, and that same child using a drawing app to create their own illustrated stories. Between a teenager playing a violent game alone all night, and another coding their first mini-game on Scratch with the help of a parent.
Content, context, and duration make all the difference. The screen is just a tool — neutral in itself, it's the use we make of it that makes it beneficial or harmful.
Screens can stimulate rare skills
Certain digital uses develop skills that traditional toys simply cannot, or much less effectively.
Computational thinking, for example — the ability to break down a complex problem into simple, logical steps — is naturally learned through programming. Apps like Scratch, Code.org, or Tynker allow children as young as seven to create small programs, animations, and games. This algorithmic logic is a fundamental skill of the 21st century.
Digital creativity is another field in its own right. A child who learns to edit a small video, compose a melody on GarageBand, or draw on Procreate develops artistic expression that physical tools cannot always offer — especially in terms of error correction, experimentation without irreversible consequences, and access to an infinite palette.
Screens connect and open up to the world
A child playing Minecraft online with their cousin who lives on the other side of France maintains a real family bond. A preteen who joins a manga drawing fan community on a forum learns to express themselves, receive constructive feedback, and integrate into a group that shares their passions. A young girl who follows sign language courses on YouTube learns something extraordinary out of pure curiosity.
Digital, when properly supervised, does not isolate. It can connect, enrich, and open doors that geography or family resources would otherwise close.
The real dangers — without exaggeration
However, we must talk about the risks. Not to scare, but because denying them would be irresponsible.
Captology, or the art of captivating without enriching
Major digital platforms — social networks, entertainment apps, free-to-play games — are designed by engineers whose sole objective is to maximize time spent on their product. This is not a secret; it's an economic model. Notifications, random rewards, infinite feeds, progression loops — everything is designed to trigger dopamine circuits and make it difficult to stop.
A child does not have the cognitive tools to resist these mechanisms. And often, adults don't either. This is where the real danger of screens lies: not in watching a series or playing a game, but in the passive and endless consumption of content designed to keep us hooked.
Sleep, a major silent victim
Epidemiological studies over the last ten years are consistent on one point: screens in the evening disrupt the sleep of children and adolescents. Blue light delays melatonin production, but it is primarily mental stimulation — the excitement of a game, the anxiety of social networks, the "just one more video" effect — that delays falling asleep.
A child who regularly lacks sleep sees their attention, memory, and emotional regulation skills deteriorate. The consequences are real and documented. Yet, a large majority of French children aged 10 to 14 use a screen within the hour before bedtime.
Sedentariness, a concrete physical risk
Time spent in front of a screen is time spent immobile. This is not inevitable — there are games that encourage movement, like Ring Fit Adventure or augmented reality games — but in the majority of uses, the screen involves a static, often poor, posture. Combined with already very sedentary school rhythms, this immobility can have consequences for children's physical health.
Impoverishment of attention
Some researchers, including those associated with the work of American psychologist Jonathan Haidt, warn of a deeper phenomenon: the attention span of children and adolescents would significantly decrease under the effect of prolonged exposure to short and hyper-stimulating content. Reading a book, listening to a story without images, playing a game that requires patience — these activities would become difficult for brains accustomed to fifteen-second videos.
This is not an argument to ban screens, but to ensure that the shortest and most addictive formats do not colonize all of a child's leisure time.
What official recommendations say in 2026
Recommendations from pediatricians and health organizations have evolved in recent years. We have moved from a very restrictive discourse ("no screens before 3 years old") to a more nuanced and contextualized approach.
In France, the French Society of Pediatrics now recommends:
- Before 18 months: no screens, except family video calls. An infant's brain needs real interactions, human faces, varied sensory stimulation.
- 18 months – 3 years: very limited use, only with an adult present who comments and interacts. No passive consumption.
- 3 – 6 years: maximum 45 minutes per day, with content selection. Favor educational and creative applications.
- 6 – 12 years: maximum 1h30 per day during the week, 2h on weekends. No screens in the bedroom, no screens in the evening.
- Adolescents: a negotiated framework rather than an imposed one, with clear rules on schedules, spaces, and types of content.
These recommendations are not dogmas. They are guidelines, to be adapted to each family, each child, each context.
How to find the right balance? Practical advice
Rather than opposing toys and screens, here's how to make them coexist intelligently.
1. Think in terms of "what" rather than "how much"
Duration matters, but content matters even more. An hour of creative programming is better than twenty minutes of autoplay videos. Ask yourself: does this activity create something, develop something, connect someone? Or does it consume passively?
2. Create screen-free spaces
The bedroom, the dining table, short car journeys — these spaces and moments can remain screen-free, not as punishment, but as a fundamental habit. A child who is used to being a little bored learns to mobilize their creativity and imagination.
3. Play with them, on all media
The best regulator of screen use is parental presence. A parent who plays a video game with their child, who watches a series with them and talks about it afterwards, who explores an educational app together — that parent transmits digital values much better than any imposed rule.
Similarly, a parent who takes out Lego, suggests a board game on Friday evening, or reads a story aloud instead of putting on a tablet — that parent provides an alternative by example.
4. Value boredom
Boredom has become a rare and precious commodity. When a child says "I'm bored," many parents' reflex is to immediately offer them something — often a screen. Yet, boredom is the breeding ground for creativity. It is in these empty moments that imagination invents, that spontaneous games are born, that children learn to surprise themselves.
Letting a child be bored for five minutes is trusting them to find what truly interests them.
5. Choose toys that grow with the child
Some toys stand the test of time: Lego, magnetic construction sets, card games, simple musical instruments, books. Investing in durable and evolving toys rather than disposable gadgets is also a way to show that an object's value is not about its novelty.
6. Involve the child in the rules
From seven or eight years old, children are perfectly capable of participating in developing family rules around screens. "How many hours a day do you think is reasonable?" "What would you like to do if you didn't have your tablet?" These conversations empower the child and give meaning to limits, which are no longer arbitrary prohibitions but shared decisions.
And connected toys, in all of this?
There is now a third category that blurs the boundaries: connected toys. Programmable robots like Sphero or Makeblock, Lego bricks that link to an app, interactive plush toys that respond to voice, board games that use a tablet as an augmented game board.
These objects are interesting because they leverage the best of both worlds — physical manipulation and digital power — but they also raise new questions. What happens when the server that operates the connected toy is turned off? What data does this plush toy that listens to your child's voice collect? Is the toy truly autonomous or is it entirely dependent on an app that can change or disappear?
These questions deserve to be asked before purchase, just like solidity or educational value.
Conclusion: Let's stop the opposition, let's start curating
The real problem is neither toys nor screens. It's the lack of thought about what we offer our children and why. A toy bought because it's "less bad than a screen" and left in a corner is worth less than an educational app used with curiosity and pleasure. A screen playing in the background while the child plays nearby is more harmful than a video game played with concentration for thirty minutes.
In 2026, children are growing up in a world where digital technology is everywhere — in schools, in transport, in homes, in their parents' hands. To completely deprive them of screens would be to cut them off from a reality they will have to master. But to abandon them to it without guidance would be just as irresponsible.
The real question is not "toys or screens?". It's "what do we want our child to experience, feel, learn, and create today?" And depending on the answer, we choose the most suitable tool — whether it's made of wood, plastic, or pixels.