5 ms·

Before that we had (and still have) Magic the Gathering. I remember spending a huge amount on money on "boosters": packs of random cards with a chance of contai

Before that we had (and still have) Magic the Gathering. I remember spending a huge amount on money on "boosters": packs of random cards with a chance of containing a good or rare one. Then you had (still have) Mac Donald and their monopoly game. And you had (and still have) the TV games where you could send a text, and before that call, for a chance to win, with ads during kids show. And before that, you could send a letter. In France we had a sweet called "mistral gagnant", which you bought because if the sweet was a winner, you'd get another one for free. I'm pretty sure things existed way, way, before that, I'm just not aware of it.

everdev 8y ago
Adults seem pretty susceptible to all of the above as well.
- sametmax 8y ago
  What's bad for children is always bad for adults, but because we already have defense and coping mechanisms, we got the illusion of control.
  - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
    > ...because we already have defense and coping mechanisms, we got the illusion of control. Agreed, and just wanted to add that it's surprising just how many adults don't seem have these mechanisms. Perhaps a form of learned helplessness by being subjected to this kind of thing from childhood?
- vincnetas 8y ago
  Thats why we have gambling regulations.
mschuster91 8y ago
> Before that we had Magic the Gathering. Similar to Pokemon, you at least got something tangible. Even if MtG or Pokemon shutdown tomorrow, you can still play with your cards until you die, and then your kids can play with them. Or you can sell them to other kids or collectors. > Then you have Mac Donald and their monopoly game. Also, here you got a tangible benefit (you got fed). This is the key difference versus paying for Ninja Wars, or even for non-pay2win-stuff like "skins". The second the game servers get shut down is also the second your collection becomes worthless. And if you're done with the game you can't even sell on your stuff to someone else.
- mlurp 8y ago
  Gambling (especially aimed at minors) def gives me an "icky" feeling too, but I'm not sure the "tangible" aspect is very key. To me, it seems like McDonald's food that's physical but lasts a short time is about as tangible as a skin that's not physical but you can use for years.
  - mschuster91 8y ago
    > To me, it seems like McDonald's food that's physical but lasts a short time is about as tangible as a skin that's not physical but you can use for years. Well... at least with McD there is a natural limit on how much one can spend on gambling Monopoly (=how much you can eat before having to barf). With most digital goods, there is no such limit, and to make it psychologically worse, there is nothing actually "representing" what you got for your money - it's all numbers and code that depends on a central server.
    - dalore 8y ago
      Isn't McD worse then? It's encouraging people to eat/drink more sugar and carbs then one should just for a chance to win. Making them more unhealthly. There is also no limit, people can (and do) buy it and chuck it away. Or eat part of it. And end of the day you have nothing "representing" what you got for your money except some more weight on the scale. The skin lasts a lot longer and is better then junk food. At least the skin is neutral, McD has a negative benefit even if it is more tangible.
- sametmax 8y ago
  Watching a movie on a DVD or from a file on your hard drive is still a movie, tangible or not. In the example of the Magic card, those cards had no value for a human being, biologically speaking. We gave them value. You could as well write the card text on a piece of paper and play it the same way. The fact they are tangible pieces of paper doesn't erase the gambling-for-children aspect. Nor does it give them any more real value than a video game bonus. They have the value we estimate in our heads. You give for example a low value to a LoL skin. But to a player that spends hours a day on it, and use it as a central platform for social interactions and fun, the skin has an impact, and for a long time. I played dota for a years, I never bough a skin, but when I won one, I sure used it.
watwut 8y ago
Magic the Gathering was less popular and less known. Less kids ended up putting that much money into it. It was same money suck and I don't see how its precedence make anything better.
- lrem 8y ago
  Magic the Gathering also has the benefit of training the children in manipulating complex systems with strict rules and adversaries. The amount of abstract thinking, long-, mid- and short-term planning, statistics, environment surveying, ... I will literally do my best to get my children into this or a similar game. But that doesn't detract from the previous commenter's point: gambling aimed at children has always been there. Internet is merely an amplifier here.
  - watwut 8y ago
    Yes it was, but issue affected small enough community and was easier to control (due to social pressure being lower on average kid). I am glad we are finally calling it what it is. All those positive things can be learned in ways that do not require kids to play super expensive pay to win game.
    - lrem 8y ago
      What would be such a way? I'm genuinely interested.
  - thejrk_ 8y ago
    My son(12) just got a couple mtg decks for Christmas so I'm getting into it with him. I had only played it once when I was around his age. You are correct, there is so much to it I was amazed how deep it gets. Fantastic game.
erfgh 8y ago
So what?
tokyodude 8y ago
Maybe this difference doesn't matter but you can technically play Magic the Gathering by copying the cards or drawing your own. Get out a piece of paper, start drawing the stats on the cards. Play the game. In other words, you're not paying for the game, your paying to collect cards. I never personally understood it but watched friends, family, and co-workers spent $2k-$5k on cards back in the mid 90s. That seems different to me in some subtle way from in-game purchases in video games.
- Cpoll 8y ago
  Indeed, it's pretty common to 'proxy' more expensive cards when playing casually. Of course, if you want to play in a sanctioned tournament, you need to pony up.
- dalore 8y ago
  Draw your own cards and try bring it to a game, see how that goes down.
  - scoggs 8y ago
    I'd love to see a really talented and fast working artist modify their deck mid-tournament to always be best prepared for their coming opponent and the deck they are known to use. I'm sure that wouldn't go over too well.
sverige 8y ago
I have wondered whether MtG wasn't just a clever way to prep an audience to buy into the Bitcoin, um, idea. There are lots of connections between the two, obviously, and I'm pretty sure years ago I heard someone propose that Richard Garfield is or personally knows Satoshi.
- woodrowbarlow 8y ago
  respectfully, that's a little bit ridiculous. MtG is neither the first nor only TCG to sell randomized booster packs, and it has been around for a quarter-century. i don't see any connections between the two besides those that are generically inherent to microeconomies.
sixothree 8y ago
Monopoly seems a lot less predatory. You're not paying for a chance to get the company's core product - some food. You're paying for food with a chance to get something extra.

everdev 8y ago

Adults seem pretty susceptible to all of the above as well.

sametmax 8y ago
What's bad for children is always bad for adults, but because we already have defense and coping mechanisms, we got the illusion of control.
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
  > ...because we already have defense and coping mechanisms, we got the illusion of control. Agreed, and just wanted to add that it's surprising just how many adults don't seem have these mechanisms. Perhaps a form of learned helplessness by being subjected to this kind of thing from childhood?
vincnetas 8y ago
Thats why we have gambling regulations.

mschuster91 8y ago

> Before that we had Magic the Gathering. Similar to Pokemon, you at least got something tangible. Even if MtG or Pokemon shutdown tomorrow, you can still play with your cards until you die, and then your kids can play with them. Or you can sell them to other kids or collectors. > Then you have Mac Donald and their monopoly game. Also, here you got a tangible benefit (you got fed). This is the key difference versus paying for Ninja Wars, or even for non-pay2win-stuff like "skins". The second the game servers get shut down is also the second your collection becomes worthless. And if you're done with the game you can't even sell on your stuff to someone else.

mlurp 8y ago
Gambling (especially aimed at minors) def gives me an "icky" feeling too, but I'm not sure the "tangible" aspect is very key. To me, it seems like McDonald's food that's physical but lasts a short time is about as tangible as a skin that's not physical but you can use for years.
- mschuster91 8y ago
  > To me, it seems like McDonald's food that's physical but lasts a short time is about as tangible as a skin that's not physical but you can use for years. Well... at least with McD there is a natural limit on how much one can spend on gambling Monopoly (=how much you can eat before having to barf). With most digital goods, there is no such limit, and to make it psychologically worse, there is nothing actually "representing" what you got for your money - it's all numbers and code that depends on a central server.
  - dalore 8y ago
    Isn't McD worse then? It's encouraging people to eat/drink more sugar and carbs then one should just for a chance to win. Making them more unhealthly. There is also no limit, people can (and do) buy it and chuck it away. Or eat part of it. And end of the day you have nothing "representing" what you got for your money except some more weight on the scale. The skin lasts a lot longer and is better then junk food. At least the skin is neutral, McD has a negative benefit even if it is more tangible.
sametmax 8y ago
Watching a movie on a DVD or from a file on your hard drive is still a movie, tangible or not. In the example of the Magic card, those cards had no value for a human being, biologically speaking. We gave them value. You could as well write the card text on a piece of paper and play it the same way. The fact they are tangible pieces of paper doesn't erase the gambling-for-children aspect. Nor does it give them any more real value than a video game bonus. They have the value we estimate in our heads. You give for example a low value to a LoL skin. But to a player that spends hours a day on it, and use it as a central platform for social interactions and fun, the skin has an impact, and for a long time. I played dota for a years, I never bough a skin, but when I won one, I sure used it.

watwut 8y ago

Magic the Gathering was less popular and less known. Less kids ended up putting that much money into it. It was same money suck and I don't see how its precedence make anything better.

lrem 8y ago
Magic the Gathering also has the benefit of training the children in manipulating complex systems with strict rules and adversaries. The amount of abstract thinking, long-, mid- and short-term planning, statistics, environment surveying, ... I will literally do my best to get my children into this or a similar game. But that doesn't detract from the previous commenter's point: gambling aimed at children has always been there. Internet is merely an amplifier here.
- watwut 8y ago
  Yes it was, but issue affected small enough community and was easier to control (due to social pressure being lower on average kid). I am glad we are finally calling it what it is. All those positive things can be learned in ways that do not require kids to play super expensive pay to win game.
  - lrem 8y ago
    What would be such a way? I'm genuinely interested.
- thejrk_ 8y ago
  My son(12) just got a couple mtg decks for Christmas so I'm getting into it with him. I had only played it once when I was around his age. You are correct, there is so much to it I was amazed how deep it gets. Fantastic game.

erfgh 8y ago

So what?

tokyodude 8y ago

Maybe this difference doesn't matter but you can technically play Magic the Gathering by copying the cards or drawing your own. Get out a piece of paper, start drawing the stats on the cards. Play the game. In other words, you're not paying for the game, your paying to collect cards. I never personally understood it but watched friends, family, and co-workers spent $2k-$5k on cards back in the mid 90s. That seems different to me in some subtle way from in-game purchases in video games.

Cpoll 8y ago
Indeed, it's pretty common to 'proxy' more expensive cards when playing casually. Of course, if you want to play in a sanctioned tournament, you need to pony up.
dalore 8y ago
Draw your own cards and try bring it to a game, see how that goes down.
- scoggs 8y ago
  I'd love to see a really talented and fast working artist modify their deck mid-tournament to always be best prepared for their coming opponent and the deck they are known to use. I'm sure that wouldn't go over too well.

sverige 8y ago

I have wondered whether MtG wasn't just a clever way to prep an audience to buy into the Bitcoin, um, idea. There are lots of connections between the two, obviously, and I'm pretty sure years ago I heard someone propose that Richard Garfield is or personally knows Satoshi.

woodrowbarlow 8y ago
respectfully, that's a little bit ridiculous. MtG is neither the first nor only TCG to sell randomized booster packs, and it has been around for a quarter-century. i don't see any connections between the two besides those that are generically inherent to microeconomies.

sixothree 8y ago

Monopoly seems a lot less predatory. You're not paying for a chance to get the company's core product - some food. You're paying for food with a chance to get something extra.