That would be a good argument if the addicting part were the gameplay rather than the
casinoMTX store.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.
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.
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.
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. 👍
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
deleted by creator
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.
“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.
deleted by creator
