4 ms·

A really simple solution would be to cap the amount of money a user can spend on a single game in a certain time period after the initial buy-in (so games could

A really simple solution would be to cap the amount of money a user can spend on a single game in a certain time period after the initial buy-in (so games could still charge hundreds of dollars for Premium/GOTY/etc editions). Even something like $50/mo would stop whales

SkyBelow 7y ago
If it is a simple solution, then there likely is a simple work around. In this case, large companies with multiple games can have cross game promotions. Also, $50/game/month is still a very larger amount of money for many people and doesn't resolve the issue of kids being allowed to gamble.
- chipperyman573 7y ago
  Sure, Blizzard does this a lot with their games. The idea behind it is more that it prevents whales, destroying the business model... the kids spending $100/mo are nothing compared to the people who spend literally tens of thousands of dollars on these games every month. That's who they're targeting.
- PhasmaFelis 7y ago
  > Also, $50/game/month is still a very larger amount of money for many people and doesn't resolve the issue of kids being allowed to gamble. The business model for these games is that 99% of players spend negligible amounts, and 1% spend hundreds or thousands; the minnows are a loss leader to get to the whales. Restricting spending to $50 or $100/month would destroy games like this entirely. (Which I'm fine with, personally.)
  - SkyBelow 7y ago
    It would destroy the current whale business model, but it might still result in going after big spenders in other fashions by getting more games for them to play a shorter time each and it might result in them modifying the feedback loop to get more people spending the maximum allowed. Also, are the minnows really loss leaders or just not as profitable?
Semaphor 7y ago
$50/mo would stop CCGs in their tracks. I know enough grown-ups with enough money who drop a few hundreds when a new set releases in MtG: Arena or Hearthstone (and those amounts don't count as whales)
maccard 7y ago
Why is $50/month an acceptable amount to spend on alcohol or coffee but not on games? Does it only apply to these style of games or do games like league of legends need to limit purchases too? (I don't have an answer, fwiw, but I'm not overly keen on this solution)
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  I'm of two minds about this solution (I like the "it'll immediately destroy the whole business model" approach), but I'll bite. There are couple of reasons: 1) Children are already restricted from consuming alcohol and coffee. 2) You can only drink so much coffee before your body asks you to stop, or gives up completely. It's not pleasant. 3) Coffee doesn't have this level of addictive properties (alcohol has, and as you'll note, alcoholism is a big problem, though see #5 and #6). 4) There are already "social antibodies" preventing most people from overconsumption of alcohol (and to some extent, coffee). 5) Alcohol prohibition didn't work because it unfairly punished the addiction-free majority, but what's proposed here isn't a restriction on video games, but on a particular aspect of a particular set of them. The proposal doesn't restrict the fun-giving part, only the addiction-inducing and addiction-exploiting parts. 6) Nobody designs alcohol or coffee with the sole intent of causing addiction their users that can be exploited for money. Whereas these games absolutely are designed like this.
  - largespoon 7y ago
    I would add time and attention as an important distinction.
  - maccard 7y ago
    To try and shorten my response - I agree with you that the core issue is a predatory design, and that the addictions have differences to physical addictions. However I still disagree that putting a $50 (for arguments sake) cap on the amount to be spent will even help. If that issue worked, it would work for alcohol too. Just because alcohol makes you ill doesn't stop people with an addiction from drinking themselves sick and waking up and immediately resuming drinking. Coffee may have been a bad example but tobacco is another reasonable comparison - limiting tobacco consumption to an arbitrary limit won't help people with a nicotine addiction. There are many games out there (world of Warcraft for example) which impose weekly lockouts - no matter how much you play you can't progress past a certain point. What ends yo happening is people start at the lockout, burn through the allotted content as soon as possible, and then just wait a week and come back. Implementing a limit isn't going to stop people who are addicted to these games from finding 5-6-7 of them to make progress on to scratch that itch. To address one of your claims directly: > The proposal doesn't restrict the fun-giving part, only the addiction-inducing and addiction-exploiting parts. Firstly how do you define which parts are fun giving and which parts are addiction inducing? There is a very fine line between engaging and enabling, and it's a fuzzy one. At their core, the majority of games are Skinner boxes, and everything else is dressing over that (even MP games). What is firmly in the camp of fun for many many people could easily be considered enabling for a large group of others. People enjoy progression systems in games, they are engaging and fun, and there are clear cases where these are abusive. I don't believe that saying "if you can get 20x more people addicted you can still earn the same" is the right way to punish those abuses though. We should look at ways of reducing the reasons why people fall I to these traps, and look at regulating the monetisation methods of these games, otherwise they'll just change tack and appear in a slightly different form in 18 months time with creative workarounds (which have already been mentioned - multiple games with tie ins, gifting, streaks, external purchased to interact with the game)
Kiro 7y ago
I'm happy to be a whale. I can afford it. Why do you want to stop me? I get a lot of joy from spending money on mobile games. I think it should be regulated somehow but not like that.

SkyBelow 7y ago

If it is a simple solution, then there likely is a simple work around. In this case, large companies with multiple games can have cross game promotions. Also, $50/game/month is still a very larger amount of money for many people and doesn't resolve the issue of kids being allowed to gamble.

chipperyman573 7y ago
Sure, Blizzard does this a lot with their games. The idea behind it is more that it prevents whales, destroying the business model... the kids spending $100/mo are nothing compared to the people who spend literally tens of thousands of dollars on these games every month. That's who they're targeting.
PhasmaFelis 7y ago
> Also, $50/game/month is still a very larger amount of money for many people and doesn't resolve the issue of kids being allowed to gamble. The business model for these games is that 99% of players spend negligible amounts, and 1% spend hundreds or thousands; the minnows are a loss leader to get to the whales. Restricting spending to $50 or $100/month would destroy games like this entirely. (Which I'm fine with, personally.)
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  It would destroy the current whale business model, but it might still result in going after big spenders in other fashions by getting more games for them to play a shorter time each and it might result in them modifying the feedback loop to get more people spending the maximum allowed. Also, are the minnows really loss leaders or just not as profitable?

Semaphor 7y ago

$50/mo would stop CCGs in their tracks. I know enough grown-ups with enough money who drop a few hundreds when a new set releases in MtG: Arena or Hearthstone (and those amounts don't count as whales)

maccard 7y ago

Why is $50/month an acceptable amount to spend on alcohol or coffee but not on games? Does it only apply to these style of games or do games like league of legends need to limit purchases too? (I don't have an answer, fwiw, but I'm not overly keen on this solution)

TeMPOraL 7y ago
I'm of two minds about this solution (I like the "it'll immediately destroy the whole business model" approach), but I'll bite. There are couple of reasons: 1) Children are already restricted from consuming alcohol and coffee. 2) You can only drink so much coffee before your body asks you to stop, or gives up completely. It's not pleasant. 3) Coffee doesn't have this level of addictive properties (alcohol has, and as you'll note, alcoholism is a big problem, though see #5 and #6). 4) There are already "social antibodies" preventing most people from overconsumption of alcohol (and to some extent, coffee). 5) Alcohol prohibition didn't work because it unfairly punished the addiction-free majority, but what's proposed here isn't a restriction on video games, but on a particular aspect of a particular set of them. The proposal doesn't restrict the fun-giving part, only the addiction-inducing and addiction-exploiting parts. 6) Nobody designs alcohol or coffee with the sole intent of causing addiction their users that can be exploited for money. Whereas these games absolutely are designed like this.
- largespoon 7y ago
  I would add time and attention as an important distinction.
- maccard 7y ago
  To try and shorten my response - I agree with you that the core issue is a predatory design, and that the addictions have differences to physical addictions. However I still disagree that putting a $50 (for arguments sake) cap on the amount to be spent will even help. If that issue worked, it would work for alcohol too. Just because alcohol makes you ill doesn't stop people with an addiction from drinking themselves sick and waking up and immediately resuming drinking. Coffee may have been a bad example but tobacco is another reasonable comparison - limiting tobacco consumption to an arbitrary limit won't help people with a nicotine addiction. There are many games out there (world of Warcraft for example) which impose weekly lockouts - no matter how much you play you can't progress past a certain point. What ends yo happening is people start at the lockout, burn through the allotted content as soon as possible, and then just wait a week and come back. Implementing a limit isn't going to stop people who are addicted to these games from finding 5-6-7 of them to make progress on to scratch that itch. To address one of your claims directly: > The proposal doesn't restrict the fun-giving part, only the addiction-inducing and addiction-exploiting parts. Firstly how do you define which parts are fun giving and which parts are addiction inducing? There is a very fine line between engaging and enabling, and it's a fuzzy one. At their core, the majority of games are Skinner boxes, and everything else is dressing over that (even MP games). What is firmly in the camp of fun for many many people could easily be considered enabling for a large group of others. People enjoy progression systems in games, they are engaging and fun, and there are clear cases where these are abusive. I don't believe that saying "if you can get 20x more people addicted you can still earn the same" is the right way to punish those abuses though. We should look at ways of reducing the reasons why people fall I to these traps, and look at regulating the monetisation methods of these games, otherwise they'll just change tack and appear in a slightly different form in 18 months time with creative workarounds (which have already been mentioned - multiple games with tie ins, gifting, streaks, external purchased to interact with the game)

Kiro 7y ago

I'm happy to be a whale. I can afford it. Why do you want to stop me? I get a lot of joy from spending money on mobile games. I think it should be regulated somehow but not like that.