4 ms·

I don't really see why. We can pretty much all agree that the lottery is also 'stupid', but it works, and it's quite clearly understood why it works. These sor

I don't really see why. We can pretty much all agree that the lottery is also 'stupid', but it works, and it's quite clearly understood why it works. These sort of games work because they get people addicted, and then blackmail them into paying money to make the games easier for them.

teamonkey 17y ago
The other way of looking at it is that people are paying to be entertained by an entertainment product.
- bumblebird 17y ago
  It's a gray area, but IMHO that's not what's happening here. It's more of a bait/switch than an honest upfront cost for entertainment.
  - pchristensen 17y ago
    It's not about entertainment or bait/switch - it's low challenge accomplishment. The 'Villes let you feel like you've accomplished something, even though all you put into it was time and money. Usually accomplishing something takes true effort and creativity, with a risk of failure, but these games are "accomplishment lite" with no risk of failure.
    - teamonkey 17y ago
      Yes and no. There's a school of thought that the player should be allowed to play a game any way they please, that play is a creative process and the game is a box of tools to make an enjoyable experience. The player makes their own fun by setting themselves goals and challenges that match their personalities and skill sets (that they find enjoyable). As their skills develop (or they simply get bored) they naturally find new, different, more challenging things to do until the game can no longer satisfy them. Zynga provide a free framework and a whole load of extras to enable people to have fun. You can progress for free according to a number of pre-designed interpretations of how you can progress in the game, or you can short-cut for cash and do the bits you really enjoy, and you spend more as you explore different options. It practically screams "revenue stream". Obviously it's all set up to make loads of cash, but I see it as enabling fun rather than a scam or "accomplishment lite".
      - pchristensen 17y ago
        Oh, don't worry, I think it's practically the epitome of fun. I just think the fact that there's no challenge aside from spending time means the fun will run out quickly.
qeorge 17y ago
I think "blackmail" is too much. The offer is not misleading, even if it seems like a waste of money to us.
heyitsnick 17y ago
The only way they could be blackmailing you is if they said something like, "if you don't spend money, we will tell everyone on facebook how much you suck at maintaining virtual fish!" I don't think this is exactly the case. They sell a service. Whether you deem it a service of value or not is irrelevant.
- bumblebird 17y ago
  The fact someone sells a service doesn't mean it's right, proper, etc. Gambling is heavily regulated for a reason. I would say that games like these should be regulated just as much. 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?
  - mattmaroon 17y ago
    Like many drugs, gambling is heavily regulated because of puritanical values, not because regulation helps reduce the social impact. These games are not gambling at all, and share no more in common with gambling than any other form of capitalism. And yes, it would be totally fine. If you don't like it you don't have to play Street Fighter II. And given that it costs 50 cents a play and has a steep learning curve, that's effectively what they do in a roundabout way.
    - bumblebird 17y ago
      They share a lot. They are addictive, and the further in you get sucked, the harder it is to stop. Because of this, the further in you get, the easier it is to be exploited and taken advantage of. I don't think it's about being puritan, it's about protecting the most vulnerable members of society from themselves. For example, say you get 95% of the way through a game, then the game asks for $100 to get past an absolutely impossible stage, they'd probably get a fantastic amount of people spending the $100 reluctantly. Which IMHO isn't a nice way to do things.
allenbrunson 17y ago
i'm actually going to agree with matt's original point. if you call an app 'stupid', then you are preventing yourself from being able to empathize with its users. if it's successful, then it is fulfilling some sort of need. by putting yourself in opposition to the people whose needs are being met, you are making it impossible to see what they get from it. of course, the fact that matt refers to users of products he doesn't like with terms far, FAR worse than 'stupid' kind of negates his point.
mattmaroon 17y ago
That's ludicrous. Selling someone something in game is no different than selling them something in real life. Do makers of razor blades blackmail users? What about Apple with iTunes DRM? And if you think the lottery is stupid, you should not ever work in the game design industry.
- bumblebird 17y ago
  The issue isn't as clear cut as that. They are offering you an 'easier game' for money. When you're competing against other people, that's an un-level playing field. I'm pretty sure people who run lotteries think they are stupid. They are a tax on the poor, but they're extremely effective at raising money.
  - mattmaroon 17y ago
    People who run lotteries do not think that the lotteries are stupid. I know a lot of people who work in the gaming industry, you can trust me on that. Some may think people who play the lottery are stupid. There's a very big difference.
    - bumblebird 17y ago
      We're splitting hairs now and down to the meaning of "lotteries are stupid" :) I see your distinction though, I was meaning the latter when I said "lotteries are stupid".

teamonkey 17y ago

The other way of looking at it is that people are paying to be entertained by an entertainment product.

bumblebird 17y ago
It's a gray area, but IMHO that's not what's happening here. It's more of a bait/switch than an honest upfront cost for entertainment.
- pchristensen 17y ago
  It's not about entertainment or bait/switch - it's low challenge accomplishment. The 'Villes let you feel like you've accomplished something, even though all you put into it was time and money. Usually accomplishing something takes true effort and creativity, with a risk of failure, but these games are "accomplishment lite" with no risk of failure.
  - teamonkey 17y ago
    Yes and no. There's a school of thought that the player should be allowed to play a game any way they please, that play is a creative process and the game is a box of tools to make an enjoyable experience. The player makes their own fun by setting themselves goals and challenges that match their personalities and skill sets (that they find enjoyable). As their skills develop (or they simply get bored) they naturally find new, different, more challenging things to do until the game can no longer satisfy them. Zynga provide a free framework and a whole load of extras to enable people to have fun. You can progress for free according to a number of pre-designed interpretations of how you can progress in the game, or you can short-cut for cash and do the bits you really enjoy, and you spend more as you explore different options. It practically screams "revenue stream". Obviously it's all set up to make loads of cash, but I see it as enabling fun rather than a scam or "accomplishment lite".
    - pchristensen 17y ago
      Oh, don't worry, I think it's practically the epitome of fun. I just think the fact that there's no challenge aside from spending time means the fun will run out quickly.

qeorge 17y ago

I think "blackmail" is too much. The offer is not misleading, even if it seems like a waste of money to us.

heyitsnick 17y ago

The only way they could be blackmailing you is if they said something like, "if you don't spend money, we will tell everyone on facebook how much you suck at maintaining virtual fish!" I don't think this is exactly the case. They sell a service. Whether you deem it a service of value or not is irrelevant.

bumblebird 17y ago
The fact someone sells a service doesn't mean it's right, proper, etc. Gambling is heavily regulated for a reason. I would say that games like these should be regulated just as much. 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?
- mattmaroon 17y ago
  Like many drugs, gambling is heavily regulated because of puritanical values, not because regulation helps reduce the social impact. These games are not gambling at all, and share no more in common with gambling than any other form of capitalism. And yes, it would be totally fine. If you don't like it you don't have to play Street Fighter II. And given that it costs 50 cents a play and has a steep learning curve, that's effectively what they do in a roundabout way.
  - bumblebird 17y ago
    They share a lot. They are addictive, and the further in you get sucked, the harder it is to stop. Because of this, the further in you get, the easier it is to be exploited and taken advantage of. I don't think it's about being puritan, it's about protecting the most vulnerable members of society from themselves. For example, say you get 95% of the way through a game, then the game asks for $100 to get past an absolutely impossible stage, they'd probably get a fantastic amount of people spending the $100 reluctantly. Which IMHO isn't a nice way to do things.

allenbrunson 17y ago

i'm actually going to agree with matt's original point. if you call an app 'stupid', then you are preventing yourself from being able to empathize with its users. if it's successful, then it is fulfilling some sort of need. by putting yourself in opposition to the people whose needs are being met, you are making it impossible to see what they get from it. of course, the fact that matt refers to users of products he doesn't like with terms far, FAR worse than 'stupid' kind of negates his point.

mattmaroon 17y ago

That's ludicrous. Selling someone something in game is no different than selling them something in real life. Do makers of razor blades blackmail users? What about Apple with iTunes DRM? And if you think the lottery is stupid, you should not ever work in the game design industry.

bumblebird 17y ago
The issue isn't as clear cut as that. They are offering you an 'easier game' for money. When you're competing against other people, that's an un-level playing field. I'm pretty sure people who run lotteries think they are stupid. They are a tax on the poor, but they're extremely effective at raising money.
- mattmaroon 17y ago
  People who run lotteries do not think that the lotteries are stupid. I know a lot of people who work in the gaming industry, you can trust me on that. Some may think people who play the lottery are stupid. There's a very big difference.
  - bumblebird 17y ago
    We're splitting hairs now and down to the meaning of "lotteries are stupid" :) I see your distinction though, I was meaning the latter when I said "lotteries are stupid".