5 ms·

Are you serious? You're comparing micro-transactions in Candy Crush to Versace/Starbucks/Cadillac. Do you honestly think that's a reasonable comparison?

baddox 13y ago
There is a comparison. Both companies purposefully attempt to persuade people to pay money for their products. Like every other company that has ever existed.
- TheZenPsycho 13y ago
  there's a difference though. In one, you get a useful product: a car. And a good feeling that goes with it. What king does, and what is being called manipulation, does not result in satisfaction or good feeling. A person simply spends money in order to progress, but ultimately does not actually get an enjoyable experience or useful product out of spending the money. It's borderline gambling.
  - baddox 13y ago
    If King's customers didn't get satisfaction from their purchases, they wouldn't make the purchases. It sounds like you simply don't get satisfaction from that type of product (I don't either), so you leap to a normative claim about which feelings are "legitimate" and which aren't. I don't agree with your comparison to gambling, but even if I did, I don't have a problem with gambling either.
    - TheZenPsycho 13y ago
      Compulsion is not the same thing as satisfaction. Satisfaction is not the only thing that drives purchasing decisions or compulsion. You don't get it. your comments about gambling are really cold and detached from the real world suffering that gambling addiction causes people and their families.
      - baddox 13y ago
        How does one decide what is "compulsion" and what is "satisfaction"? What if someone really believes that they find Candy Crush fun and are very satisfied with the money they spend on it? Are they wrong? Are you able to determine what they truly enjoy better than they themselves? People attempt to construct this dichotomy all the time, but I have yet to hear of a decision procedure. Gambling addiction is unfortunate, but completely irrelevant to this point. People get addicted to prescription pain medication, exercise, and sex, but I'm not against any of those things either.
  - nemothekid 13y ago
    What about Versace? Is a watch a useful product when its priced at $2,000? Is convincing others to pay $1,500 for a pair of jeans anything other than manipulation? Your counterpoint doesn't really hold any water. King might be sucking value out of manipulating customers into buying into imaginary value, but they are the far from the first successful company to do so.
    - TheZenPsycho 13y ago
      that's not a fair comparison. those products are about conspicuous display of disposable wealth. Candy Crush impresses no one.
      - baddox 13y ago
        So now, only companies which sell things that you find satisfying or which impress other people are legitimate companies?
        TheZenPsycho 13y ago
        I think you are being deliberately obtuse. We are talking about exploitation here. Finding bugs in the human operating system and exploiting them. It's technically a legitimate business, but is it moral, or ethical? no.
        baddox 13y ago
        You have not described any procedure to decide whether something is "exploitation/compulsion" or simply someone being persuaded to buy something they enjoy.
        TheZenPsycho 13y ago
        are you a computer with no native facility for judgement?
        13y ago
DigitalSea 13y ago
Loyalty programs are very similar psychologically to what King and other game makers do in their games to get you to buy from them. Give someone a reason to spend money and they will and without realising it, you've spent more than it cost you to give away that free coffee are purchasing 5 coffees.
MarkPNeyer 13y ago
starbucks relies on providing the user a quick fix of doamine when they feel stressed or unfocused, which keeps them coming back. versace and cadillac rely on providing their customers a feeling of superiority and social status. cadillacs are arguably better engineered than other brands, but versace is clearly all about status. i think it's a reasonable comparison, but as others have said, this is what most companies do anyhow.

baddox 13y ago

There is a comparison. Both companies purposefully attempt to persuade people to pay money for their products. Like every other company that has ever existed.

TheZenPsycho 13y ago
there's a difference though. In one, you get a useful product: a car. And a good feeling that goes with it. What king does, and what is being called manipulation, does not result in satisfaction or good feeling. A person simply spends money in order to progress, but ultimately does not actually get an enjoyable experience or useful product out of spending the money. It's borderline gambling.
- baddox 13y ago
  If King's customers didn't get satisfaction from their purchases, they wouldn't make the purchases. It sounds like you simply don't get satisfaction from that type of product (I don't either), so you leap to a normative claim about which feelings are "legitimate" and which aren't. I don't agree with your comparison to gambling, but even if I did, I don't have a problem with gambling either.
  - TheZenPsycho 13y ago
    Compulsion is not the same thing as satisfaction. Satisfaction is not the only thing that drives purchasing decisions or compulsion. You don't get it. your comments about gambling are really cold and detached from the real world suffering that gambling addiction causes people and their families.
    - baddox 13y ago
      How does one decide what is "compulsion" and what is "satisfaction"? What if someone really believes that they find Candy Crush fun and are very satisfied with the money they spend on it? Are they wrong? Are you able to determine what they truly enjoy better than they themselves? People attempt to construct this dichotomy all the time, but I have yet to hear of a decision procedure. Gambling addiction is unfortunate, but completely irrelevant to this point. People get addicted to prescription pain medication, exercise, and sex, but I'm not against any of those things either.
- nemothekid 13y ago
  What about Versace? Is a watch a useful product when its priced at $2,000? Is convincing others to pay $1,500 for a pair of jeans anything other than manipulation? Your counterpoint doesn't really hold any water. King might be sucking value out of manipulating customers into buying into imaginary value, but they are the far from the first successful company to do so.
  - TheZenPsycho 13y ago
    that's not a fair comparison. those products are about conspicuous display of disposable wealth. Candy Crush impresses no one.
    - baddox 13y ago
      So now, only companies which sell things that you find satisfying or which impress other people are legitimate companies?
      - TheZenPsycho 13y ago
        I think you are being deliberately obtuse. We are talking about exploitation here. Finding bugs in the human operating system and exploiting them. It's technically a legitimate business, but is it moral, or ethical? no.
        baddox 13y ago
        You have not described any procedure to decide whether something is "exploitation/compulsion" or simply someone being persuaded to buy something they enjoy.
        TheZenPsycho 13y ago
        are you a computer with no native facility for judgement?
        13y ago

DigitalSea 13y ago

Loyalty programs are very similar psychologically to what King and other game makers do in their games to get you to buy from them. Give someone a reason to spend money and they will and without realising it, you've spent more than it cost you to give away that free coffee are purchasing 5 coffees.

MarkPNeyer 13y ago

starbucks relies on providing the user a quick fix of doamine when they feel stressed or unfocused, which keeps them coming back. versace and cadillac rely on providing their customers a feeling of superiority and social status. cadillacs are arguably better engineered than other brands, but versace is clearly all about status. i think it's a reasonable comparison, but as others have said, this is what most companies do anyhow.