[nabergh]

> I would definitely be hooked on that particular game and still throwing money out for -- not much but a faster reward-cycle.

Do you think that's an inherently bad thing? Maybe it was for you at the time but I feel like the ability to reliably turn money into entertainment (in this case "a faster reward-cycle") is a great thing to have available to people who already have their basic needs met.

[maze-le]

No, not necessarily. It depends on each individual and the circumstances they are in. Its like with drugs, if you have a healthy social circle, a relationship / family you care about and a stable and productive work-environment, it will be a lot harder to get you addicted to the rewards of micro-transactions.

>> I feel like the ability to reliably turn money into entertainment (...) is a great thing to have

Yes, definitely. Each and every person can use (or learn to use) these games responsibly -- Not only games -- books, videos you name it -- like most people here I have a steam account, amazon prime, audible and a few other amenities where I wouldn't use my money in a compulsory manner. But a lot of free-to-play games have these little tweaks, that make it so very easy to spend money and don't even think twice about it. The occasional invite to start a transaction, placed at strategic "blockers" where you'll otherwise have to wait for 24h to advance can already be enough.

The crucial thing is to know about these mechanisms and have some sense of introspection into ones own behavior -- these skills can be learned.

EDIT: After I read some of the other responses and thought about it -- it is also important for us all, to acknowledge that some of these mechanisms do work like drugs -- neurochmically. And like with drugs prohibitions are counterproductive -- but a good effort in regulation might be a good step forward -- I've read very good examples in the other parts of this thread regarding a step like this.

[ACow_Adonis]

Does it still look like such a good thing of you're already in a world that is capable of supplying almost unlimited free entertainment (or education, for that matter). I mean, I'd say the preference for entertainment over education is somewhat depressing/pathological, but let's leave that 'elitist' position behind...

In times passed we had a limited supply of literature, music, games, even god forbid, TV and movies. But these days we can put those on mediums that practically never degrade, and the rate of production has gone through the roof, and the producers of many of those goods are either dead and gone or there is no way to get money to them for their work, and we have the technical means to get them to whoever could want them at an almost zero marginal cost.

In that environment, a population that clocks time mindlessly feeding dollars to another party looks pretty sick. Which is, it would be my contention, is exactly what they are.

It is essentially the same as the old and uneducated who pump billions of dollars through the mindless gambling machines in my country. Not a image of humanity anyone would talk about with anything approaching pride/respect. Frankly, we should be ashamed...

[ohyes]

In that case, what’s wrong with heroine? You’re just sticking entertainment into your arm. (This is intentionally hyperbolic).

This issue isn’t really the money -> gratification conversion, it’s the addictive nature of the process. If I’ve done everything I can to addict you to my product (to remove your ability to decide for yourself)... I’m in a morally bad area.

I’m of the opinion that some of these addictive response patterns should be banned from games flat-out, whether or not there’s a direct connection to someone’s line of credit.

If heroine were free, it would still be a problem for those addicted to it, if not for very long. (Although no one would have a financial incentive to get other people hooked, so it’s an interesting thought experiment as to whether use would increase or decrease).

[maze-le]

That is a very bad example. In Switzerland, if you are a severe addict, you can get heroine in pharmacies. The most important restriction is that if you buy the stuff, you are also bound to go to a therapeutic clinic and have staff assisting you whenever you want to withdraw. There are also clean injection rooms and other social mechanisms that help you get off the stuff.

The result -- fewer heroine addicts, fewer drug-related crime, less active criminal underworld (because of lower drug-related income).

An adult discourse and proper handling of addiction and substance abuse not only helps the addicts, but the whole society.

[ohyes]

I think that makes it an even better example.

Giving away the addictive thing you still have to pay the societal cost of having people addicted to it. Switzerland handles this is a very admirable way and they have excellent outcomes, due to treating addiction as a disease rather than an individual moral failing.

I don't see why substance abuse in particular should get a super-special treatment in our discourse on human addiction-related behavior.

If it's destroying your ability to function in society, and something that you might want to drop the habit of, we should support our fellow people in doing it. If that is gambling, video-games, porn, they all activate similar dopamine related effects. Heroine and other opiates are super-effective at this, but it is still the same pathway being activated.

[maze-le]

Good response! See my updated/edited other post. You are right essentially -- these games can and sometimes do work like drugs -- neurochemically. And like with drugs total prohibition will probably make things even worse.

[chepaslaaa]

The main problem with opiates in north america is that they're prescribed with no mechanism in place for withdrawing.

[joenot443]

I think there are plenty of companies who there who do everything in their power to addict people to their products. Whether it's moral is a completely different discussion, but I definitely don't think this pattern is unique to game developers.

[xg15]

Yes. First, it turns the game from an good or service I buy to enjoy into a glorified supermarket where I'm supposed to buy even more goods. This frequently ruins both immersion and gameplay.

Secondly, the developers now have incentives to make you spend as much as possible, which is why you'll frequently see psychological tricks to move you in that direction.

Even if the developers were completely earnest, the rewards cycle will cause craving for mire rewards and will easily keep one glued to the game longer than intended.

If I need to exert willpower to use a service "responsibly" while the service actually makes its money from people using it irresponsibly, the service probably shouldn't be used in the first place.