[jeffreyk]

I think you're missing the point here. I sank tons of money into arcade games just as you did, however neither one of us needed to add quarters during gameplay to get new items to use. You also can't compare purchasing a console game to the money that gets used in social games. Your points of comparison are apples and oranges. I can respect that you feel comparing social games to gambling is wrong, but it's purely subjective. Gambling and gaming are both forms of entertainment that cost money. If you set aside your bias and look at the facts of the game mechanics, you'll see that the comparison is actually spot on.

[steve8918]

I disagree with you. What is the difference between buying a new type of crop vs. getting 3 more lives so that you can explore deeper down the dungeon? The only difference is that in Farmville it's a bit lazier because they enhance the speed of the items. You don't think that back in 1985 when we were playing Gauntlet that if you paid $0.50 to get an invincible player vs the regular $0.25, that it would be considered gambling? No way, it's enhancing the gaming experience. That's it. In both cases, you are enhancing the gaming experience by paying more money.

This is entirely different from a slot machine where "if I just do 10 more pulls, I might win $1MM! My luck is bound to turn sooner or later!" It's a completely different mentality. You put money in slot machines because you consider it an investment in hopes that you will make back more money than you put in. If you removed the ability for people to win money, the casinos would probably be empty, despite how many blips and bloops you put into the game.