5 ms·

How do we differentiate from a compelling and effective form of entertainment with an addictive activity? Most people wouldn't look down on someone who stays up

How do we differentiate from a compelling and effective form of entertainment with an addictive activity? Most people wouldn't look down on someone who stays up till 3 AM reading a gripping book, but many would if we swap the book with a video game. Definitely people who can't hold down jobs or education due to addition to video games or social media is a problem, but I suspect that a lot of the concern is due to an overall negative view towards games and internet use. What I do think is a problem is the fact that we have much better data collection on how people use video games and internet services. Absent that information, developers had to think about crafting a good overall experience that people were willing to pay for. With that information, people optimize for overall time used instead of the quality of the experience. Hours and dollars spent is an easy metric to show to executives, judging the overall quality of the experience is much more subjective.

CyanBird 7y ago
>ow do we differentiate from a compelling and effective form of entertainment with an addictive activity? Just like we have always done, if something constantly disturbs day to day activities, then it is an addictive behaviour >That is, the addictive behavior “spills over” into several dimensions of one’s daily life https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3210595/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3210595/ _______ >What I do think is a problem is the fact that we have much better data collection on how people use video games and internet services I think this doesnt get to the core of the issue, and that's that, humans have always sought better and more efficient ways to get enjoyment out of things, people would infuse their rectums with alcohol way back in Egyptian times to get a stronger alcohol "high". The difference between lets say, 1980's arcades and modern mobile games is simply the tools available, the aim is the same. Only now we can do it faster with A/B testing, with the knowledge of Skinner boxes, etc Having worked in GameDev, one of the most flooring things I have faced is people asking me for me to introduce said addictive inducing systems and mechanisms.... They want the enjoyment, they want to be "addicted", they want a game "so good" that they can't put it down. And when it comes to what you mention of the metrics, yeah, 100%, modern digital era metrics are all based in the so called "Attention Economy", specially for social platforms, in the case of Netflix or Fortnite, their biggest competitors are people actually working, or asinine things like taking a walk, cooking, spending time with family, etc. We are in a race to the bottom for people's attentions and lives, HackerNews itself is yet another Skinnerbox for those that enjoy learning things. Reddit, Twitter, Youtube they all are designed to be addictive, Limbic Capitalism, and to not do so would mean that said platforms would lose in the free market against others that did employ said tactics... We are optimizing for human pleasure, yet what happens when said pleasure is actually a potential enemy?
- manfredo 7y ago
  > Having worked in GameDev, one of the most flooring things I have faced is people asking me for me to introduce said addictive inducing systems and mechanisms.... They want the enjoyment, they want to be "addicted", they want a game "so good" that they can't put it down. This is what I'm talking about though. Back when games were bought on a disk or cartridge and didn't feature any sort of micro-transactions there was no point in making a game addictive. It didn't matter if players played the game for 2 hours or 200 hours. All that mattered is that the game was good so that people enjoyed it, became popular, and sold well. In some sense, getting players addicted to any one game might actually be undesirable as it would reduce willingness to pay for subsequent games. Nowadays, so many games are trying to be "lifestyle games" that are meant to be continuously consumed instead of played through once or twice.
  - taneq 7y ago
    Not only were games addictive back then, but they were explicitly advertised as such and it was considered a good thing. Being addictive was the mark of a good game!
    - DougN7 7y ago
      Sid Meier’s Civilization (from almost 30 years ago!) was built this way. (Fantastic game! :)
  - leetcrew 7y ago
    > Back when games were bought on a disk or cartridge and didn't feature any sort of micro-transactions there was no point in making a game addictive. is this really true? when I was a kid (long enough ago that there were no skins or loot boxes), the most effective way to make me want a game was to see my friends playing it and having fun. there were probably tons of short single-player games that I was never aware of because people would just finish them quickly and not play while friends were over. but I still have vivid memories of watching people play smash and desperately wanting my own N64. maybe the industry wasn't so ruthlessly capitalistic back then, but there had to be some execs that realized how much free marketing you get out of addictive console games.
joaomacp 7y ago
> much better data collection on how people use video games and internet services [...] people optimize for overall time used instead of the quality of the experience That's it. There is a lot of data about people's habits, and that enables companies to tune digital products right into people's gratification systems. It's a psychological hack. Even when you're aware of it, it's hard to resist video games / facebook / twitter / hackernews cravings. But these addiction issues are being talked about more, and people are becoming more aware and starting to self-control, so I don't think a catastrophic mind-control scenario will happen soon (except in dictatorships like China, but that's another story).
DougN7 7y ago
I suspect the person that stays up with the book will only get that involved once or twice a month. But with gaming it could easily be every night. So there is a degree of effect that has to be considered.

CyanBird 7y ago

>ow do we differentiate from a compelling and effective form of entertainment with an addictive activity? Just like we have always done, if something constantly disturbs day to day activities, then it is an addictive behaviour >That is, the addictive behavior “spills over” into several dimensions of one’s daily life https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3210595/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3210595/ _______ >What I do think is a problem is the fact that we have much better data collection on how people use video games and internet services I think this doesnt get to the core of the issue, and that's that, humans have always sought better and more efficient ways to get enjoyment out of things, people would infuse their rectums with alcohol way back in Egyptian times to get a stronger alcohol "high". The difference between lets say, 1980's arcades and modern mobile games is simply the tools available, the aim is the same. Only now we can do it faster with A/B testing, with the knowledge of Skinner boxes, etc Having worked in GameDev, one of the most flooring things I have faced is people asking me for me to introduce said addictive inducing systems and mechanisms.... They want the enjoyment, they want to be "addicted", they want a game "so good" that they can't put it down. And when it comes to what you mention of the metrics, yeah, 100%, modern digital era metrics are all based in the so called "Attention Economy", specially for social platforms, in the case of Netflix or Fortnite, their biggest competitors are people actually working, or asinine things like taking a walk, cooking, spending time with family, etc. We are in a race to the bottom for people's attentions and lives, HackerNews itself is yet another Skinnerbox for those that enjoy learning things. Reddit, Twitter, Youtube they all are designed to be addictive, Limbic Capitalism, and to not do so would mean that said platforms would lose in the free market against others that did employ said tactics... We are optimizing for human pleasure, yet what happens when said pleasure is actually a potential enemy?

manfredo 7y ago
> Having worked in GameDev, one of the most flooring things I have faced is people asking me for me to introduce said addictive inducing systems and mechanisms.... They want the enjoyment, they want to be "addicted", they want a game "so good" that they can't put it down. This is what I'm talking about though. Back when games were bought on a disk or cartridge and didn't feature any sort of micro-transactions there was no point in making a game addictive. It didn't matter if players played the game for 2 hours or 200 hours. All that mattered is that the game was good so that people enjoyed it, became popular, and sold well. In some sense, getting players addicted to any one game might actually be undesirable as it would reduce willingness to pay for subsequent games. Nowadays, so many games are trying to be "lifestyle games" that are meant to be continuously consumed instead of played through once or twice.
- taneq 7y ago
  Not only were games addictive back then, but they were explicitly advertised as such and it was considered a good thing. Being addictive was the mark of a good game!
  - DougN7 7y ago
    Sid Meier’s Civilization (from almost 30 years ago!) was built this way. (Fantastic game! :)
- leetcrew 7y ago
  > Back when games were bought on a disk or cartridge and didn't feature any sort of micro-transactions there was no point in making a game addictive. is this really true? when I was a kid (long enough ago that there were no skins or loot boxes), the most effective way to make me want a game was to see my friends playing it and having fun. there were probably tons of short single-player games that I was never aware of because people would just finish them quickly and not play while friends were over. but I still have vivid memories of watching people play smash and desperately wanting my own N64. maybe the industry wasn't so ruthlessly capitalistic back then, but there had to be some execs that realized how much free marketing you get out of addictive console games.

joaomacp 7y ago

> much better data collection on how people use video games and internet services [...] people optimize for overall time used instead of the quality of the experience That's it. There is a lot of data about people's habits, and that enables companies to tune digital products right into people's gratification systems. It's a psychological hack. Even when you're aware of it, it's hard to resist video games / facebook / twitter / hackernews cravings. But these addiction issues are being talked about more, and people are becoming more aware and starting to self-control, so I don't think a catastrophic mind-control scenario will happen soon (except in dictatorships like China, but that's another story).

DougN7 7y ago

I suspect the person that stays up with the book will only get that involved once or twice a month. But with gaming it could easily be every night. So there is a degree of effect that has to be considered.