3 ms·

Twenty years ago games companies didn't employ psychologists and economists to ensure their game currencies and loot boxes were suitably addictive. You were ad

Twenty years ago games companies didn't employ psychologists and economists to ensure their game currencies and loot boxes were suitably addictive. You were addicted to Civ or old school Defender arcades because it was too much fun (for a while), not because they had a team exploiting every weak point. Somewhere along the line (f2p with premium currencies, maybe monthly subscriptions) it switched to cutting your fix with some heroin to ensure it's addictive enough. To me that's qualitatively different, and in need of regulation.

benj111 7y ago
What is the biological difference though? (genuine question) It's all well and good rationally formulating a difference between fun and addictive, but if our monkey brains can't tell the difference, should we really be treating them differently?
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  I'm no psychologist, so I'm sure someone could express this better. I don't think the addiction to early games, whether Civ or Tempest that we called "addictive" was a real addiction. It was just fun. No more than anyone was addicted to cycling or football as a kid. Loot boxes, with all the tricks of "almost" winning rolls, and currencies that intentionally distance you from actual money so you're not sure how much you're spending, or MMO's with the "Skinner box" grind. Those are pushing much more into real addictions exploiting people who know it's doing them no good. They're using the same addictive techniques as gambling, such as scratch cards that have 2 of 3 jackpot spaces when you scratch. They all cross the line into exploitative and need some level of regulation just like gambling. Particularly when it's pitched at minors. That UK gambling regulation has been liberalised in the last 25 years, and there's been a huge growth of problems stemming from that is no surprise.
- Buttons840 7y ago
  From personal experience, it seems to me that "fun" results in good memories. You smile when looking back on "fun" memories. When you look back on "addictive" behavior, you sense the passage of time and energy (and resources/money) and feel neutral (at best) about the behavior. The hard part is in the moment where you don't especially want to perform the addictive behavior, but it's too uncomfortable to do anything else.
Buttons840 7y ago
I've heard it said: Games used to be about making the computer do what the user wanted, now games are about making users do what the computer wants. Rather, games used to be about packing in features players and the developers thought would be cool and fun, and then the game would be sold for a flat price. Now games are about extracting as much money as possible with a minimum of interesting game mechanics and a maximum of psychological tricks. It's not true of all modern games, but is definitely a growing trend.

benj111 7y ago

What is the biological difference though? (genuine question) It's all well and good rationally formulating a difference between fun and addictive, but if our monkey brains can't tell the difference, should we really be treating them differently?

NeedMoreTea 7y ago
I'm no psychologist, so I'm sure someone could express this better. I don't think the addiction to early games, whether Civ or Tempest that we called "addictive" was a real addiction. It was just fun. No more than anyone was addicted to cycling or football as a kid. Loot boxes, with all the tricks of "almost" winning rolls, and currencies that intentionally distance you from actual money so you're not sure how much you're spending, or MMO's with the "Skinner box" grind. Those are pushing much more into real addictions exploiting people who know it's doing them no good. They're using the same addictive techniques as gambling, such as scratch cards that have 2 of 3 jackpot spaces when you scratch. They all cross the line into exploitative and need some level of regulation just like gambling. Particularly when it's pitched at minors. That UK gambling regulation has been liberalised in the last 25 years, and there's been a huge growth of problems stemming from that is no surprise.
Buttons840 7y ago
From personal experience, it seems to me that "fun" results in good memories. You smile when looking back on "fun" memories. When you look back on "addictive" behavior, you sense the passage of time and energy (and resources/money) and feel neutral (at best) about the behavior. The hard part is in the moment where you don't especially want to perform the addictive behavior, but it's too uncomfortable to do anything else.

Buttons840 7y ago

I've heard it said: Games used to be about making the computer do what the user wanted, now games are about making users do what the computer wants. Rather, games used to be about packing in features players and the developers thought would be cool and fun, and then the game would be sold for a flat price. Now games are about extracting as much money as possible with a minimum of interesting game mechanics and a maximum of psychological tricks. It's not true of all modern games, but is definitely a growing trend.