That would be a good argument if the addicting part were the gameplay rather than the ~~casino~~ MTX store.
this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2024
135 points (97.2% liked)
Games
16715 readers
1149 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I mean, I play fortnite because it's fun and i don't like more realistic shooters or small maps. I still haven't spent any money on it.
Lol yes we can. We regulate gambling which is arguably just a very addicting game. Because it intentionally and maliciously preys on known psychological weaknesses and does so to extract enough money from victims to ruin them, we regulated it.
I think it's quite a fascinating subject. In my opinion, the real problem is the stakes.
When you have RNG in a game, the only thing you have to potentially lose is the time you've spent in that game, so there's a natural reasonable cap. Once you introduce outside currency, the stakes can grow way outside that bounds.
The reason gambling is so problematic is that the higher the stakes, the more adrenaline is released. This causes sensitivity to adrenaline decreases, and even bigger risks need to be taken to elicit the same reaction.
Gaming generally has a hard cap on how much you can lose, so there simply isn't a way to increase the risk. The only thing that can happen is that you get bored of the game.
On a fundamental level, though, there's no mechanical distinction between gambling and (some) RNG in games. In both cases you put your time on the line.
I suppose the other element is that expected value (ROI) is often >=1 in games and <1 in gambling. Usually in gaming it's expected that if you continue to put in time you'll eventually progress, whereas the opposite is almost universally true in gambling; the more time you put in, the more you stand to lose.
Nobody is mad that Civilization and Factorio cause us to accidentally pull all-nighters, they're mad that the latest Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, Grand Theft Auto, and other similar games are designed to extract as much money as possible from people.
Once upon a time people worried about MMO addiction and that was before they added $40 horses. I was on the other side back then, now game publishers can go fuck themselves.
The science of slot machines is applied directly to some video games. The Molecule of More is worth a read.
Rtfa.
Call of Duty, for instance, is criticized for rewarding players with gun and attachment unlocks, which the suit calls "a form of operant conditioning," as well as for featuring "fast-paced play, satisfying graphics, sounds, and other dopamine lifts." Minecraft's multiplayer features are said to "addict players to connecting with others in the Minecraft world" and the suit warns that players with ADHD "can become easily hyper focused and addicted to building worlds." Grand Theft Auto 5, the suit says, "includes endless arrays of activities and challenges to continually engage users and ensure they are never bored."
If that's what they want to take away than fuck them. Focus on the shit that has to do with loot boxes and micro transactions. If they want people to engage more irl the solution isn't to ruin the only outlet I and others have, it's to improve people's lives where they don't view escaping into games as a necessity to get away from depressing reality. Just my two cents.
Lol. Their lawsuit sounds like a good videogame ad.
Well, this particular lawsuit is pretty stupid and does indeed cite things that are just fun and not part of the "get them addicted" machine such as Minecraft having multiplayer.
I still don't agree with the quote in the headline, though.
Never forget it was Bethesda that started it all with the fucking horse armor.
Horse armor is completely above-board, relative to this abuse. It was a real expansion: you paid money for new files. Stupidly tiny new files that solved problems the game created. But new files nonetheless.
Horse armor was the warning sign for the next decade of min-maxed bullshit DLC. That didn't turn into this fresh hell until publishers tried doing "on-disc DLC." I.e., you pay us for the game, and the whole game is on the damn disc, but you don't get the whole game until you pay us again, for the game you just fucking bought.
Once mobile trash started charging repeatedly for the same geegaws, we were fucked. Only legislation will fix this.
Shit like this is why forums need to protect vulgarity. It's a deeply dishonest "just because you disagree" insult that takes ten times longer to pick apart or respond do, when really it's just fucking LYING.
That's not why you're being sued.
And you know it.
You bastards.
Cigarettes aren't regulated to death because they're "too good."
excellent comment, analysis and subsequent defense of your position in the following discussion. i feel like i learned something, thanks for this homie. 👍
What? I don't understand this comment.
Weird energy. Just don't play their games
"Just don't smoke them!"
No I'm talking to you, not the industry.
You clearly have a formed opinion on these games " bastards". Why do this to yourself?
Pictured: the problem, blind to itself.
I know you're talking to me. I am shitting on your argument, by metaphor, by showing it's exactly what I already dealt with.
None of that is "done to myself." What the fuck would that even mean? I am condemning a business model and this propaganda used to defend it. It has nothing to do with me, personally, and the suggestion is derailing horseshit.
And the fact I have to triple-check I didn't end any of these sentences with so much as a comma and a G-rated insult, when it's such fucking nonsense to deal with, is why enforced civility is a failure of any forum. An unforced error that freely tolerates overt trolling but viciously punishes the natural and necessary response to such verbal abuse.
Like dude you are so certain, and express yourself with such clarify. I'm saying it's all there, why are you wasting time on this.
Edit "Why do this to yourself" refers to THIS exchange. Why comment on these threads or on this topic? It clearly brings you no joy.
You have a lot of anger on this it seems like you're ready.
If you're taking what I'm saying as an insult deserving a rulebreak, I think you need to take a break. I'm just a commenter on a website.
"Why deal with people like me?" is quite a fucking angle.
I comment on this topic because it's important, dammit. Venting about it is not making things worse for me.
I deal with people like you because you fucking asked. How irrational! Apparently.
I'd love to have more constructive discussions on this. There's a wide variety of sensible ways the conversation could go. But for some god-damn reason, I mostly attract the same "juuuust" nonsense over and over, even when it is explicitly dealt with in the comment you're rolling your eyes at.
I absolutely should not have to educate every Lemmy user, individually, on why this business model is a scam, and how it threatens gaming as a whole. But if I have to - I will.
If you’re taking what I’m saying as an insult deserving a rulebreak, I think you need to take a break. I’m just a commenter on a website.
"Wow you actually believe your criticisms of me? Calm down, honey. I'm juuuuuuust the reductionist definition of the only thing that could break the rules about commenting on a website."
Dude, everyone knows it's a scam. It's literally gambling, which is a scam.
Your energy is way too high.
You aren't an educator.
I'm not obligated to to digest the entire scope of the industry in any comment or reply I make, same as you. So my addressing one small facet of one comment on one thread is it. That's the end of the scope.
This is not an academic, or formal space. You aren't on the clock.
You're clearly very angry and you're obviously just putting that anger on me. Do what ya gotta do, again, none of this matters.
Your one small facet is the same denialist horseshit I get with complete sincerity, over and over and over.
Do you feel one iota of responsibility for the escalating vitriol in response to the things you write? If not, why the fuck not? I'm not making shit up and getting mad about it. I am directly addressing the words that come out of your keyboard. They started awful. They got worse. Maybe you should fix that. I'm not sure what the hell you expect in response, if "here's why you should stop doing this shit" leaves you performatively tutting.
You’re clearly very angry and you’re obviously just putting that anger on me.
"You're juuuuuuuuuuuuuust angry" is trolling. Fuck right off with that behavior. I haven't said shit about your internal emotional state, and for once, I'm not even picking apart the abusive aspect of you doing that to me. But if you're just going to dismiss the entire conversation by attributing it to that deep dissatisfaction, like reaching a conclusion is proof of unreasonable motivation, why are you on this website at all? Why ever comment? You could have more fun making it up in your head, and by the sound of things, having fun is all you think these words on a screen are for.
Lol take a break dude. I've tried to offer us both outs until now, clearly we aren't speaking the same language. You are comically angry and none of it is working on me. Cya!
Edit I'm not trolling, I'm responding to someone being openly hostile to me.
"I'm not trolling. U MAD LOL?!"
This sort of abuse is far worse than any televisable insult that'd violate rule 1.
You responded to an impersonal condemnation of abusive businesses with "just don't buy it!" like a thousand other people before you. I highlighted how that's exactly the shit addressed in the comment you were responding to, where you should have seen it, the first time. You immediately dragged this out to be about me, and how butthurt I must be to keep having this exchange... with your derailing bullshit. Which you're somehow not responsible for.
Hey buddy? Sometimes when people are unhappy with you, it is entirely your fault.
Ok
"You're being unreasonable! I've done nothing wrong ever."
"Here is exactly what you did wrong and why it's wrong and how calling bullshit is entirely appropriate."
"... But why'd you call bullshit? So unreasonable!"
Now parrot the dismissive phrase you think is a clever wind-up and not an admission of fault. Maybe sir would prefer a bucktooth-and-glasses emoji? I'm told it's popular with the youths.
👍
Yeah, just like that! Confession accepted. Exactly as predicted, and utterly blind to what you're doing, even when led by the nose.
What's funny is everything you're writing is just a self burn, of where we started.
Plus the comical tantrum made this fun.
"No U."
But totally not trolling.
How could anyone be justifiably blunt toward such constructive discourse? Must be a personality problem.
If you believe you've displayed "constructive discourse" , even in your first comment I replied to, then I'm justified in all I've said.
Time for a break.
Yeah wow 'the way these people are lying is complex in a way that makes criticism arduous' is so shallow and banal. Good thing you were here to repeatedly ask 'why keep talking?' with negative self-awareness.
Don't regulate actual gameplay which is entertaining, but regulate strongly microtransactions and the like.
Nothing inside a video game should cost real money.
Not sure I totally agree. The idea of researching and applying addictive traits to anything feels like something to be regulated. It's not literally brainwashing but applying pressure to these topic can make anything positive into a negative. Even something like getting people to exercise could turn into someone collapsing if addictive qualities were applied.
Ok, but you can't actually isolate 'knowledge of addictive behaviour' into a regulatable thing without an absurd amount of government oversight i.e. examing every employees work to check they aren't using that pesky psyschology degree.
Ok, but what would be the legal precendent there? We regulate tabacco precisely because of it's psychological and medical effects, not because it's bad for your wallet. This lawsuit depends upon a claim of addiction because you can't just regulate something for annoying you.
Call it what it is. At the very least, loot boxes and the like should be considered outright gambling – which is highly regulated.
You can when you bastards have psychologists on staff for the explicit purpose of creating systems that, through the power of science, are guaranteed to be addictive.
That seems like a bold claim to make after so many companies have been hiring psychologists to influence addicting systems in their game shops
"You can't sue us for making opiods 'too pleasurable', say major drug manufacturers in response to addiction lawsuits."
The reality is that it comes down to motive. In the case of the Sackler family, lawsuits showed that they were effectively trying to get people addicted to their opiods. They lied about them, claiming they weren't addictive. They tried to push doctors to prescribe them for everything from sports injuries to arthritis, not just for ultra-serious pains like from cancer. They were rewarding doctors for prescribing them, even when it was obvious those doctors were just selling drugs to addicted patients. They especially liked to try to talk to doctors who were not pain specialists. Sales reps were trained in how to overcome objections from doctors, like saying "The delivery system is believed to reduce the abuse liability of the drug", even though they knew that wasn't true. They gave doctors all-expenses paid junkets to Boca Raton, Florida to attend seminars on OxyContin.
If a developer ends up making a really good game that keeps you wanting more, that's one thing. But, if you have internal messages from that developer talking about how they can hack dopamine releases and keep people coming back, that's another thing. If internal messages are about the "whales" and how to get them to cough up the most money, that's yet another one. If someone leaks internal memos where employees are laughing at idiots who are ruined after spending all their money on loot boxes, that's even worse.
IMO, the developers who really need to be sued are the ones developing gambling machines. They seem ultra-optimized for addiction, and to extract as much possible cash from the victim. It's amazing that that kind of thing is legal, but as long as it's legal, it needs to be heavily regulated so that gamblers are actually having a good time, not that they're simply being slowly drained of their blood.
What is Minecraft doing exactly?
This all sounds a lot like the moral panic around alcohol, which led to Prohibition in the 1920's. And that turned out so well...for organized crime.,
This is also the same type of panic which showed up around dancing, comic books, movies, TV and a whole host of other forms of entertainment down through the years. At some point, we need to accept that entertainment can be addictive, and too much can be bad, but that's not a legal (or tort) problem, but a social one. We don't need to give credibility to the [Jack Thompsons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson_(activist)) of the world with their pearl clutching and attempts to control everyone. Instead, we need to be offering help and treatment to those who have trouble self-regulating.
At the same time, I'm all for taxing the hell out of microtransactions, much like many nations do with alcohol. Put it on a sliding scale. Directly buying cosmetics which do not affect gameplay can be on the lower bound with a marginal tax. Anything which has an effect on gameplay gets taxed at a higher rate. Anything which involves a random chance is either directly outlawed or taxed at a crippling rate. And "points/coins/gems/widgets" as a required currency to buy anything is flat our outlawed and the people who came up with the idea get fed feet first into a chipper shredder.
You've got a controversial stance, but I agree with you along the lines of personal responsibility with sensible regulation.
IMO any game with these casino mechanics need to be labeled as gambling and age limit to 16+ or so.
Ya, I tend towards the libertarian side of the political compass. That doesn't always play well on Auth-Left dominated Lemmy. But, I never was one to care about imaginary internet points.
While I'm with you on the age restrictions, I suspect it wouldn't have that much of an impact. Kids lie all the time about their age online, and I really hate the ideas of age verification which often gets floated with these things. There's enough problems around tracking people already without laws mandating that tracking. And sadly, may of the kids who are currently enabled to play these games by their parents would still be enabled to play these games by their parents. Not too many 13 years olds are getting credit cards. Those kids' parents are often the ones buying stuff. Though this is another place where "points" and the like are a problem. As kids can circumvent the restrictions by buying points cards with cash and then using them online. Still, no point letting "perfect" be the enemy of "good enough".
The gift card racket for FN, Blizz, Roblox, etc is NUTSO! They dont even need CCs when they ask for only one thing each holiday.
But yea, fair point on the age restrictions. Somethings gotta give though.
I'm suing disney world. They made a park that my kids want to go to, too much. They need to make their parks no more fun for kids than six flags is.