3 ms·

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 m

• 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.