3 ms·

This sort of thing is worse than gambling. I'd say there's a strong case for regulating things like this. It's just preying on the addicted/weak/stupid surely.

This sort of thing is worse than gambling. I'd say there's a strong case for regulating things like this. It's just preying on the addicted/weak/stupid surely. It's almost a bait and switch: 1. Get user addicted to game 2. After some time, tell user they can progress quicker through the game if they pay money (Blackmail).

Hunchr 17y ago
How is that any different than how I used to pump quarters into Street Fighter II arcade games back in the day?
- bumblebird 17y ago
  Because that's an upfront honest price to pay the game. This is blackmail later on. (You want to do better at this game? Sure, we can fix that for you, just pay us some money).
  - skolor 17y ago
    How on earth is that blackmail? From the couple of games like this I've played, it is still entirely possible to hit the limits of the game without spending a dime. It will cost you quite a bit more time and effort, but still possible. Its more akin to an arcade game where the first play is free, but if you want a continue you have to pay a quarter each time. Sure, its a little bit shady, but its still a valid way to get money from a user. Look at all the sites/service that use a freemium model. Look at things like DropBox. Is that blackmail, since you will eventually fill up your free 2gb, and have to pay for it if you want more?
    - bumblebird 17y ago
      Because it's moving the goalposts once you're committed. It's not the same as freemium at all. A game, where you're competing against other people, that operates on a non level playing field, is unfair. Allowing people to pay money to progress faster in the game is taking advantage of peoples idiocy. Imagine going to the arcades, playing street fighter II, and it saying "We know you can't get on the score board because you suck, but if you pay $20 we'll put you at the top of the score board anyway". Would that be completely fine and above board?
      - skolor 17y ago
        But the goalposts haven't moved at all. There's simply a vendor on the sidelines selling rocket boots for 25 cents. Its not like these games start you off on a path, tell you "oh, once you've played for X long you'll be able to get Y," and then changing it so that once you get to X you find out that you also have to spend a dollar to get Y (some of these games might, but the ones I've played haven't, they've all been very clear up front what costs money and what doesn't). Most of them don't even make it so that you can't get to the goalposts without paying money, they just make it take considerably longer. I fail to see how charging money for faster progress is taking advantage of idiocy. As another example, look at television programming. I can get a half dozen broadcast channels for free. If I want more, and want to get more out of my tv watching experience by having more choice in it, I have to pay for cable, who then offers me various packages, depending on how much each of those channels is worth to me. It doesn't make it idiocy to value things differently than other people. I value $10 a month more than HBO. Does that make all of the people who pay for HBO idiots? Does that make all it blackmail for the cable company to offer a trial of HBO when I sign up (admittedly, that practice is slightly shady, due to the difficulty to stop the channels after the trial, but that is a completely different issue)? Just because you put more value on your money than others do on a shiny digital fish doesn't make them an idiot, it makes them someone who values shiny digital fish. -To your edit: Well, if that was the way things were from the start, sure. Say you go to the arcade, and pick out your game to play. To make this all fit well, lets pick tetris. As long as you know from the start there are various "powerups" you can buy throughout the game, it seems totally fair. Its 1 quarter to start the game. Later in, you can buy various powerups, like double points for one level for another quarter, or the ability to choose your next block for a quarter. Does it make things different? Yes. But it certainly doesn't make them unfair. The options are open to everyone, those at the top and those trying to get there. Its fair, but is a little shady.
- dolinsky 17y ago
  The difference is the barrier to entry / improvement. In the case of a quarter machine slot game it's pay to play, while it's a bait and switch for a game which only allows you to continue by paying more money regardless of how well you are doing in the game. It's not necessarily illegal, but it surely is deceptive and won't win the game any fans.
  - mstevens 17y ago
    I've been playing one of the zygna games myself. To the level I've got, plenty of things would be easier if I was willing to spend money, but I haven't found anything I can't do for free.
    - skolor 17y ago
      I believe that is strongly tied to why they have become so popular so fast. You can go into the game, pick it up, and become fairly good quickly. If you continue on with it, you slowly get better as time goes on. You then get a friend to join, and they have to start at the beginning. They could spend the days/weeks it took for you to get that far, or they can spend $5 and get there in a tiny fraction of the time. To generalize it, its easy to get a handful of people to do something. If you offer it to them for free, there are plenty of people who will go out of their way to advance as far as possible. Once those people start getting friends involved, the friends will want to get that far too. By offering them a quick advancement in exchange for money, you can then make a tidy profit.
gojomo 17y ago
My upvotes will probably be swamped by the disagree-downvotes, so I'll explicitly thank you for taking this controversial position. I don't fully agree with you, but there is something very similar to online gambling in these games. (Wasn't Texas Hold 'Em one of Zynga's first games?) Casual games with virtual goods are an expertly engineered environment that is evolved through constant refinement to maximize money extraction -- like slot machines or indeed entire casino buildings. As with casinos, it may turn out they make a significant portion of their revenue from people prone to addiction or suffering from other mood problems, soothed temporarily (but perhaps made more dependent/despondent) by the games' synthetic reward system. And while I don't support government regulation (of either games or gambling), cultural norms will need to evolve, for individuals and peer groups, that moderate participation. Otherwise, profit-maximizing addiction-engineering will do real damage. The checkout form for virtual good purchases may someday include a tiny link to "Gamers Anonymous" just like the tiny print and brochures about "Gambler's Anonymous" near casino ATMs and cashier cages.

Hunchr 17y ago

How is that any different than how I used to pump quarters into Street Fighter II arcade games back in the day?

bumblebird 17y ago
Because that's an upfront honest price to pay the game. This is blackmail later on. (You want to do better at this game? Sure, we can fix that for you, just pay us some money).
- skolor 17y ago
  How on earth is that blackmail? From the couple of games like this I've played, it is still entirely possible to hit the limits of the game without spending a dime. It will cost you quite a bit more time and effort, but still possible. Its more akin to an arcade game where the first play is free, but if you want a continue you have to pay a quarter each time. Sure, its a little bit shady, but its still a valid way to get money from a user. Look at all the sites/service that use a freemium model. Look at things like DropBox. Is that blackmail, since you will eventually fill up your free 2gb, and have to pay for it if you want more?
  - bumblebird 17y ago
    Because it's moving the goalposts once you're committed. It's not the same as freemium at all. A game, where you're competing against other people, that operates on a non level playing field, is unfair. Allowing people to pay money to progress faster in the game is taking advantage of peoples idiocy. Imagine going to the arcades, playing street fighter II, and it saying "We know you can't get on the score board because you suck, but if you pay $20 we'll put you at the top of the score board anyway". Would that be completely fine and above board?
    - skolor 17y ago
      But the goalposts haven't moved at all. There's simply a vendor on the sidelines selling rocket boots for 25 cents. Its not like these games start you off on a path, tell you "oh, once you've played for X long you'll be able to get Y," and then changing it so that once you get to X you find out that you also have to spend a dollar to get Y (some of these games might, but the ones I've played haven't, they've all been very clear up front what costs money and what doesn't). Most of them don't even make it so that you can't get to the goalposts without paying money, they just make it take considerably longer. I fail to see how charging money for faster progress is taking advantage of idiocy. As another example, look at television programming. I can get a half dozen broadcast channels for free. If I want more, and want to get more out of my tv watching experience by having more choice in it, I have to pay for cable, who then offers me various packages, depending on how much each of those channels is worth to me. It doesn't make it idiocy to value things differently than other people. I value $10 a month more than HBO. Does that make all of the people who pay for HBO idiots? Does that make all it blackmail for the cable company to offer a trial of HBO when I sign up (admittedly, that practice is slightly shady, due to the difficulty to stop the channels after the trial, but that is a completely different issue)? Just because you put more value on your money than others do on a shiny digital fish doesn't make them an idiot, it makes them someone who values shiny digital fish. -To your edit: Well, if that was the way things were from the start, sure. Say you go to the arcade, and pick out your game to play. To make this all fit well, lets pick tetris. As long as you know from the start there are various "powerups" you can buy throughout the game, it seems totally fair. Its 1 quarter to start the game. Later in, you can buy various powerups, like double points for one level for another quarter, or the ability to choose your next block for a quarter. Does it make things different? Yes. But it certainly doesn't make them unfair. The options are open to everyone, those at the top and those trying to get there. Its fair, but is a little shady.
dolinsky 17y ago
The difference is the barrier to entry / improvement. In the case of a quarter machine slot game it's pay to play, while it's a bait and switch for a game which only allows you to continue by paying more money regardless of how well you are doing in the game. It's not necessarily illegal, but it surely is deceptive and won't win the game any fans.
- mstevens 17y ago
  I've been playing one of the zygna games myself. To the level I've got, plenty of things would be easier if I was willing to spend money, but I haven't found anything I can't do for free.
  - skolor 17y ago
    I believe that is strongly tied to why they have become so popular so fast. You can go into the game, pick it up, and become fairly good quickly. If you continue on with it, you slowly get better as time goes on. You then get a friend to join, and they have to start at the beginning. They could spend the days/weeks it took for you to get that far, or they can spend $5 and get there in a tiny fraction of the time. To generalize it, its easy to get a handful of people to do something. If you offer it to them for free, there are plenty of people who will go out of their way to advance as far as possible. Once those people start getting friends involved, the friends will want to get that far too. By offering them a quick advancement in exchange for money, you can then make a tidy profit.

gojomo 17y ago

My upvotes will probably be swamped by the disagree-downvotes, so I'll explicitly thank you for taking this controversial position. I don't fully agree with you, but there is something very similar to online gambling in these games. (Wasn't Texas Hold 'Em one of Zynga's first games?) Casual games with virtual goods are an expertly engineered environment that is evolved through constant refinement to maximize money extraction -- like slot machines or indeed entire casino buildings. As with casinos, it may turn out they make a significant portion of their revenue from people prone to addiction or suffering from other mood problems, soothed temporarily (but perhaps made more dependent/despondent) by the games' synthetic reward system. And while I don't support government regulation (of either games or gambling), cultural norms will need to evolve, for individuals and peer groups, that moderate participation. Otherwise, profit-maximizing addiction-engineering will do real damage. The checkout form for virtual good purchases may someday include a tiny link to "Gamers Anonymous" just like the tiny print and brochures about "Gambler's Anonymous" near casino ATMs and cashier cages.