7 ms·
"Suzie Kelly of Dallas previously told Reveal News how she spent about $400,000 on the game. She took out a home equity loan and used the money she inherited wh
by matt123456789 3y ago
"Suzie Kelly of Dallas previously told Reveal News how she spent about $400,000 on the game. She took out a home equity loan and used the money she inherited when her mother died to fund her habit."
This is a symptom of problem gambling. The article makes it sound like this app is exploiting the same neurological reward pathways as regular gambling, and causing the same kinds of damage. The lack of monetary reward might prevent more people from trying this compared to other apps where winning money is a possibility, but exactly the same kind of people will get hooked on this version, and in the same way, and cause the same kind of damage as problem gambling for money.
- rjh29 3y agoSurely it's even worse, because it's available 24/7 wherever you are, instead of being somewhere you have to physically visit.
- maneesh 3y agoPlenty of online casinos exist as well.
- preciousoo 3y agoWhy the deflection? Both are a problem, no? One just slips past the “oh gambling is bad for you” mental defense
- sneak 3y agoProblem for whom? We also have luxury stores selling expensive designer goods that people waste millions on. Why do we care so much about this specific form of people wasting their money? What’s wrong with letting people go broke the way they choose?
- cinntaile 3y agoI don't think you fully understand the issue if you compare this to people buying expensive designer goods.
- broken-kebab 3y agoIf you know something others don't then please explain. Otherwise, why bother to comment?
- just_a_quack 3y agoThe comparison to luxury goods is not really accurate here IMO. When you purchase a luxury watch you get something tangible in return. These apps purposely prey on psychological weaknesses to get people addicted - a better comparison would be something like phone call scams.
- broken-kebab 3y agoWait, per $ spent luxury clothes are generally as practically useless as skins in a game. And, people who sell them do it by tapping into social status instincts. So whether tangible, or not, I don't see much difference
- lossolo 3y agoGambling engages the brain's reward system, releasing neurotransmitters like dopamine, creating a pleasurable experience. This reinforcement mechanism, coupled with the unpredictable nature of wins, contributes to the development of addiction. The element of chance activates cognitive processes that can lead to irrational beliefs, such as the illusion of control or the gambler's fallacy. Factors like accessibility, environmental cues, and social reinforcement further shape addictive behavior. Unlike purchasing goods, where the exchange is tangible and predictable, gambling introduces a unique set of psychological stimuli, risk factors, and reinforcement mechanisms that can lead to addictive patterns and challenges in self-control.
- andy800 3y agoThis comment is naive, from someone who doesn't understand the different dynamics. The "play-for-fun" casinos successfully utilize the onboarding process to attract, and even create, the people most likely to be exploited by these games. Real-money, online casinos require a real-money deposit to get started, therefore, few people download the apps to begin with without being at least a somewhat-experienced brick-and-mortar casino gambler who is prepared to deposit real money. Play-for-fun attracts casuals looking for the next Candy Crush or Bejeweled and might get a week of play (grooming, essentially) before even being asked for an in-game purchase. Further, specifically because play-for-fun is NOT gambling, they are unregulated and have no requirement to be fair or random. The developers can insert all kinds of manipulations and scripted outcomes that encourage more play and more importantly, more real-money purchases. They can amplify the payouts over time so initially, a few thousand coins is exciting, then tens of thousands, then millions. The coin purchases get more expensive as the player requires higher amounts to maintain their levels. Lastly, it isn't like real online casinos aren't addicting or potentially problematic. Through 9 months of 2023, New Jersey online casinos have generated $1.41 billion, 65% of the brick-and-mortar casino revenue ($2.17 billion). And since online casinos and sports betting are growing much faster, they will likely surpass b-and-m a few years from now. Basically, New Jersey has created an army of addicts in a single decade, and many other states are following suit. https://www.nj.gov/oag/ge/docs/Financials/PressRelease2023/September2023.pdf https://www.nj.gov/oag/ge/docs/Financials/PressRelease2023/S...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jejeyyy77 3y agoare you from the 80's?
- xivzgrev 3y agoIt’s addicting but not gambling. Agree this should be regulated somehow
- thibaut_barrere 3y agoIt is regulated at least in a number of countries. In France for instance, only certified operators are legally allowed to run online money games (https://www.economie.gouv.fr/cedef/jeux-et-paris-ligne https://www.economie.gouv.fr/cedef/jeux-et-paris-ligne). It is just as dangerous as « regular gambling ».
- danielfoster 3y agoMoney games are regulated in the US, too, but this is not a money game because there is no money to be won.
- raincole 3y agoI really don't know why "only certified operators are allowed" is a positive thing. For me it means the money bag is no longer on the table -- not because we removed it or invested it in something better, but because we gave it to the politicians' best buddies. Edit: I don't know French so I might miss some nuances. There are some kinds of regulation that I consider positive, for example to put a certain % of the casino's operating cash in a trust funding account (or buy insurance plans) so if they were found fraudulous, at least the victims would get compensated. But I don't know if France does this.
- underdeserver 3y agoPresumably because you set certain conditions and regulations on the certified operators, with the threat of revoking certification if they fail to comply with these regulations. I would suggest, for instance, that someone about to bet more than 99% of people must have a chat with an official who verifies that they know they're addicted and present options for rehab.
- 3y ago
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- matwood 3y agoGambling is also probably one of the worst addictions to get into. People tend to notice someone with a substance problem, but gambling often stays hidden until the person is completely overwhelmed.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ethanbond 3y agoEspecially now that you can do it on your phone
- qingcharles 3y agoBelieve me when I say that sex addiction is worse because it has a much higher stigma attached to it, so it is generally much more hidden. You could go to your wife and explain that you've spent the rent money on buying Smurfcoins to gamble on some lootbox lottery, but you can't go and tell her you've spent it on paying women to push squirrels up your bottom.
- skippyboxedhero 3y agoThere is a book on this called Addiction by Design that covers a lot of this. But yes, I think the assumption of rational people is that the reason these practices are addicting is the money involved...when it isn't the money but a carefully designed sensory experience that (somehow) taps into addiction. If you actually look at how the slots industry works though, they largely focus on the sensory experience not the gambling side. I have used slots and they do seem to dull your other senses/captivate you whilst using them. Just imo, I gamble myself, have done so for all of my adult life, I know many people in the industry who are fine people, the spillovers for tech have been absolutely huge (for example, a lot of the bot detection tech we have today was invented in the gambling industry)...but slots/casino should 100% be banned. I am not a banning person naturally at all but they are just awful. Any kind of tech that seeks to replicate that process (these apps, FIFA, etc.) should also be banned because it isn't about the money, gambling is nothing to do with it. Casino products add nothing and the only people who find it appealing (in my experience) are gambling addicts. I used to work in equity research and covered the big UK gambling companies...at no point did I see any evidence that casino products had anyone but gambling addicts as customers either. You can have a laugh at the horse racing with your pals, lots of people put their accumulator on every weekend and that is it, maybe put 5 on a Prem match...but casino isn't like this, it is pure cancer.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- teeray 3y ago> they largely focus on the sensory experience not the gambling side Every time I’ve sat at a slot machine, it’s not even clear if you’re winning or not, or what the rules are. It boils down to “push button, watch absurd animations and sounds.” I just find all that sensory overload irritating, so I don’t usually stay. I can see, however, that if you like that experience, it could be powerfully attractive.
- garciasn 3y agoYes. Exactly this. No one understands and there isn’t a need to understand. You put money in and either you lose it all or you win some percentage back that you lost before. I’m not a gambler, but out of all of the ways to lose your money in a casino the video slot machines make the least sense to me; they just don’t seem at all enjoyable win or especially lose.
- ren_engineer 3y agothe lack of monetary reward is just a way to get around the legal definition of gambling, as you pointed out from an addiction perspective the result is the exact same as normal gambling.
- feedsmgmt 3y agoThose big spenders are called whales and they get explicitly targeted and catered to. Those business models choose the predatory path.
- mchanson 3y agoIt’s super gross that Apple and Google are taking a cut of these abusive business models.
- avidiax 3y agoApple and Google are totally fine with gambling just as long as it's not regulated.
- bobobob420 3y agoIt’s a problem of stupidity and lack of education. If you take a 400,000 dollar loan on home equity to gamble your brain hasn’t developed correctly and you’re probably a risk to other people (drunk driving, bad driving, etc..). Anyways gambling shouldn’t be legal it’s too destructive to society. It needs to be much much more regulated (ie free cash flow has to be proved)
- saiya-jin 3y agoI wish it would be so linear. But many otherwise brilliant people have / had horrible vices and addictions in which they ended up on their own, and despite their own overall brilliance they were utterly powerless to them (or just surrendered with a big grin). People are more complex than that, don't do the correlation vs causation mistake.
- jampekka 3y agoThere are university professors addicted to gambling, so can't be at least about formal education. US average credit card debt is $6k, most probably spent on useless crap. Probably majority of people are in that "risky category" because making people doing bad decisions is a great business model, and most business use that.