4 ms·
The original point was: "The idea that you can engineer yourself an addictive game is a silly concept." The rebuttal was: "this is literally what casinos do"
by karpierz 6y ago
The original point was: "The idea that you can engineer yourself an addictive game is a silly concept."
The rebuttal was: "this is literally what casinos do"
The rebuttal to that was: "well, some casinos fail"
Which isn't really a point. Some casinos fail, that doesn't show that they don't optimize for addiction. It just indicates that optimizing for addiction is necessary but not sufficient for a casino to maintain solvency.
- s1artibartfast 6y agoI think we have fundamentally different of andrewla's original point, and that is OK. I read it as pointing out that success isn't guaranteed with an addictive game model. I did not read it as saying that some games don't or cant optimize for addictiveness.