×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Ethics of Social Games

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the push-button-for-endorphins dept.

Social Networks 75

Gamespot is running a story about the ethics and morality of the social games market, which in recent years has exploded to involve hundreds of millions of players. Between micro-transactions, getting players to recruit friends, and the thin line between compelling games and addictive games, there are plenty of opportunities for developers to stray into shady practices. Quoting: "The most successful social games to date have used very simple gameplay mechanics, encouraging neither strategy nor dexterity but regular interaction with the game ... Although undeniably successful, the existing social game framework has been the subject of much debate among game developers from every corner of the game industry, from the mainstream to the indie community. Some, like Super Meat Boy creator Edmund McMillen, are particularly strident in their assessment. 'Social games tend to have a really seedy and abusive means of manipulation that they use to rope people in and keep them in,' McMillen said. 'People are so tricked into that that they'll actually spend real money on something that does absolutely nothing, nothing at all.'

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

75 comments

Personal experiences with the social side of MMOs (5, Interesting)

RogueyWon (735973) | more than 3 years ago | (#34341616)

There's something to this as far as MMOs go. People like to talk about how MMOs tickle the reward centres of the brain with their level-up/upgrade cycles and so on, but I suspect that this wears thin fairly quickly. Certainly, as somebody who has been heavily "into" and then got out of two MMOs (FFXI and WoW) over the last year, the social side of the game has been the biggest deterrent to leaving.

MMOs, of course, get to sting you twice in this respect. Not only do you get a social circle within the game, but if you're not careful, they also start pulling you away from your real-life social circle.

I remember I found it a bit disconcerting when I decided to stop playing WoW. I'd stopped enjoying the game about 4 or 5 months beforehand, and while I had friends within the game, I was finding the sheer tedium of playing the game itself increasingly unbearable. When I quit, I decided to go cold turkey, which was a pronounced contrast to the gradual drift-away I'd had with FFXI. For the first two weeks or so after quitting, I found it very difficult to fill the time I suddenly had. I'd gotten out of the habit of going out and doing things on weekday evenings and it took a while to get back into it.

This isn't to say that MMOs are entirely bad. I mostly enjoyed my time with FFXI and WoW. And while only having an online circle of friends is hardly ideal, it's still a step up from having no social life at all. I don't think I'd go so far as to accuse MMO developers of being outright unethical. But I do think that the MMO market is one where the principle of "caveat emptor" is relevant in some fairly unusual ways. I didn't touch MMOs during my student days, because I knew I would find them engrossing and I didn't want to take this risk until I had steady employment. It's probably worth thinking about your ability to stop playing before you get too heavily into an MMO.

Re:Personal experiences with the social side of MM (1, Flamebait)

devbox (1919724) | more than 3 years ago | (#34341668)

So now developers are accused of making their games too fun to play? After all, there is a reason you like about the game if you continue playing it.

I'd say we should encourage publishers to bring even more addicting games. Me, and many other people on slashdot, seem to lost interest in games quickly.

If an addiction becomes a problem for you, it is your job to quit doing it and not take away the fun from others. Should we also ban alcohol, gambling, tobacco and so on just because some people have problems overdoing it while others are perfectly capable doing it moderately? If you have an addiction, there is something else missing or wrong in your life, and you should fix that.

Re:Personal experiences with the social side of MM (1)

RogueyWon (735973) | more than 3 years ago | (#34341738)

Where did I call for a ban? Or, for that matter, describe my MMO playing as an addiction? I certainly wouldn't support any kind of government intervention on MMOs (indeed, would oppose it strenuously) and I am quite clear that my playing was not an addiction (I've seen real addictions close-up and they're rather different).

All I was pointing out was that potential customers should consider the possible consequences of getting too "into" an MMO, and should ask themselves whether they have the willpower needed to get out of it again should they need to.

Re:Personal experiences with the social side of MM (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34344482)

I decided to go cold turkey

Right there is where you referred to it as an addiction. If you have to "Cold Turkey" something, you were addicted to it in the first place. Look it up if you don't believe me.

Re:Personal experiences with the social side of MM (2, Informative)

morari (1080535) | more than 3 years ago | (#34342720)

So now developers are accused of making their games too fun to play?

Personally, I'd like to see developers go back to making fun games... These social games and MMOs are--in fact--boring as hell.

Re:Personal experiences with the social side of MM (1)

mattack2 (1165421) | more than 3 years ago | (#34383646)

Did you play Ico, the Katamari games, Okami, Psychonauts? Yeah, they're old games, but I don't yet own anything newer than a PS2, and those are slightly less well known games that a lot of people think are fun. (BTW, I also like the God of War games, so I don't like them _because_ they're not #1 bestsellers.)

Re:Personal experiences with the social side of MM (1)

morari (1080535) | more than 3 years ago | (#34438096)

I've never owned a PS2, though I have played one of the Katamari games. It was fun, though I seem to recall being frustrated by the time limits.

Re:Personal experiences with the social side of MM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34341844)

Not only do you get a social circle within the game, but if you're not careful, they also start pulling you away from your real-life social circle.

Sounds just like methamphetamine. Or Scientology.

Hmmm.

Re:Personal experiences with the social side of MM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34341950)

Sounds like just another social circle. Just like a great many non-virtual social circles, it costs money to remain a part of it. Like all social circles, time spent in it is time not spent in others. Those two qualities do not make it destructive like drugs or scientology.

Re:Personal experiences with the social side of MM (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#34342494)

Not only do you get a social circle within the game, but if you're not careful, they also start pulling you away from your real-life social circle.

Sounds just like methamphetamine. Or Scientology.

Hmmm.

I don't know about MMOs, but "cult" describes facebook games almost. To gain rigidly defined levels and learn new secrets, you must invite (and get) others to join. Alternating "You Fail It!" and "love bomb" messages enhance the feeling of belonging (and are addictive). The only thing lacking is the alienation of outside relationships.

Re:Personal experiences with the social side of MM (1)

thedarkchaos (1947234) | more than 3 years ago | (#34341902)

It's probably worth thinking about your ability to stop playing before you get too heavily into an MMO.

I agree. Luckily I have this coupon code that you can use. Just try it for a few minutes! I will take care of your laundry and garbage for the next few days while you get acclimated to the game environment.

Re:Personal experiences with the social side of MM (1)

ultranova (717540) | more than 3 years ago | (#34342466)

MMOs, of course, get to sting you twice in this respect. Not only do you get a social circle within the game, but if you're not careful, they also start pulling you away from your real-life social circle.

Please define "real life social circle", and why it is bad to give more weight to your online social life than that? Because, to put it bluntly, I very much doubt that most casual acquaintainces care about you more than the people who chat with you on the Internet, and many even less.

Re:Personal experiences with the social side of MM (1)

Razalhague (1497249) | more than 3 years ago | (#34342884)

It's strange how people think that just because you communicate with someone only over the internet, it isn't somehow valid.

Re:Personal experiences with the social side of MM (1)

mr_gorkajuice (1347383) | more than 3 years ago | (#34343010)

Social relations over the internet is valid for what they are. The danger about developing social relations inside a video game with a monthly payment plan is that the social circle might become the reason you keep on paying a gaming company. There's nothing wrong with online friends - however, it could be argued that there's something wrong with paying a 3rd party for creating the artificial boundaries for you to interact with your friends, rather than paying to play a game that you find amusing. And it could be argued that the social relation is not particularly significant if you would not care enough about each other to stay in touch outside of these artificial boundaries.

Also, "real friends" are a lot more handy when you need to move heavy objects.

Re:Personal experiences with the social side of MM (3, Insightful)

dave562 (969951) | more than 3 years ago | (#34344224)

The danger about developing social relations inside a video game with a monthly payment plan is that the social circle might become the reason you keep on paying a gaming company.

Re-write this...

The danger about developing social relations at a coffee house with a per cup payment plan is that the social circle might become the reason you keep on paying a coffee house.

Feel free to replace coffee house with any "acceptable" (non-Internet) based "social circle" and see if it really matters anymore.

Re:Personal experiences with the social side of MM (2, Insightful)

Bigbutt (65939) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346054)

Yea, but at least you're getting coffee :)

[John]

Re:Personal experiences with the social side of MM (1)

psithurism (1642461) | more than 3 years ago | (#34382854)

The danger about developing social relations inside a video game with a monthly payment plan is that the social circle might become the reason you keep on paying a gaming company.

Re-write this...

The danger about developing social relations at a coffee house with a per cup payment plan is that the social circle might become the reason you keep on paying a coffee house.

Feel free to replace coffee house with any "acceptable" (non-Internet) based "social circle" and see if it really matters anymore.

Well, if I tell my RL friends that I am tired of our normal coffee house, they will usually be willing to try another with me. Or maybe just hang out somewhere else entirely. Because we share more than our enjoyment of coffee in common (usually) and are not roped into that particular coffee house with the 50hours we spent leveling up and making our powers symbiotic.

Coffee houses, bars, whatnot are places you go to meet friends, but usually not the reason you have and keep friends, unlike a game, where your symbiotic powers with so and so are about all you have in common. You don't even know he just shaved his head and tattooed a swastika on it, because really you couldn't care less as long as his aura keeps you pumped.

Re:Personal experiences with the social side of MM (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 3 years ago | (#34343572)

It's not strange. Making internet relations less valid or invalid makes their bar relations more valid.

Re:Personal experiences with the social side of MM (1)

mr_gorkajuice (1347383) | more than 3 years ago | (#34342910)

"real life social circle" = people regularly interacted with in a face-to-face manner. People that you would consider friends even if doesn't say so on Facebook.
It's bad to give more weight to online social life than real life social circles, because otherwise, you might find yourself grouping your acquintances into "online" and "casual", and completely miss out on the rewarding experience of doing actual stuff in the physical world with real friends.

Re:Personal experiences with the social side of MM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34343756)

You should have a look at the new content with the Cataclysm patch. That will suck you back in for sure. Once a WOWcrack user always a WOWcrack user.

Re:Personal experiences with the social side of MM (1)

Nyder (754090) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346244)

There's something to this as far as MMOs go. People like to talk about how MMOs tickle the reward centres of the brain with their level-up/upgrade cycles and so on, but I suspect that this wears thin fairly quickly. Certainly, as somebody who has been heavily "into" and then got out of two MMOs (FFXI and WoW) over the last year, the social side of the game has been the biggest deterrent to leaving.

MMOs, of course, get to sting you twice in this respect. Not only do you get a social circle within the game, but if you're not careful, they also start pulling you away from your real-life social circle.

....

Any social thing will do that.

Work, sports, etc.

The truth is, you need to decided how you spend your time, and who with.

I never got into going out with people i worked with for beers, or whatever. While I liked most the people good enough, they were work mates, not friends.

I play everquest 2 alot. I like the people in my guild, but in the game. I don't send them emails, text messages or anything else out of game.

Here's another shocker for you.

People that get married and have kids, start hanging out at home, with the sig other & the kids. OMG! Maybe we should do something about that!!!

but seriously, what we are talking about is peoples lack of control, not about anything bad happening.

Re:Personal experiences with the social side of MM (1)

mattack2 (1165421) | more than 3 years ago | (#34383598)

And while only having an online circle of friends is hardly ideal, it's still a step up from having no social life at all.

John Bender: So it's sorta social, demented and sad, but social. Right?

I disagree w/McMillen a bit (3, Insightful)

Huntr (951770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34341674)

He said

'People are so tricked into that that they'll actually spend real money on something that does absolutely nothing, nothing at all.'

The same could be said of so much of what we do, particularly entertainment-related spending. Whether or not something is "worthwhile" is a very personal decision. People spend millions on non-social gaming and what do they get from it? The entertainment experience, same as with social games, same as with gambling, same as with watching sports or movies or observing art. You don't end up with anything tangible, but the experience is worth every penny to you. Some endeavors are more accepted as worthwhile by society or have generally agreed upon benefits, but the perception of value still varies from person to person. JMO.

Re:I disagree w/McMillen a bit (1)

heathen_01 (1191043) | more than 3 years ago | (#34341818)

but the experience is worth every penny to you.

Unless you spent those pennies on Dragon Age.

I agree w/McMillen a bit (5, Insightful)

Purity Of Essence (1007601) | more than 3 years ago | (#34341944)

Edmund McMillen is right on the money. This topic (along with the GameSpot article) fails for not mentioning an insightful and informative talk Braid creator Jonathan Blow gave at Rice University a couple of months ago. Unlike other diversions, these "social" games are not at all about providing fun or entertainment. They are entirely about separating you from your money using sophisticated psychological tricks. You might be right in saying there is a perception of value, but these systems create that perception in a very devious manner. If you were to take away the tricks, you would find there is no game -- or rather, the only game is the system creators gaming the players for all the money they can get. People don't play these games because they are fun or challenging. They play them as a conditioned response to a variable ratio reinforcement schedule, in the same way a caged rat hits a trigger for a pellet.

Watch or listen to Jonathan Blow's talk:
Games and the Human Condition [the-witness.net]

Social Games (aka Skinner Boxes):
Operant Conditioning Chamber [wikipedia.org]
Reinforcement [wikipedia.org]

Re:I agree w/McMillen a bit (0, Flamebait)

heathen_01 (1191043) | more than 3 years ago | (#34342018)

Isn't this just the age old argument that is used with gambling?

This does not appear to be a new problem. The techniques vary but the method and desired outcome is the same. There does not appear to be a meaningful distinction between socal games and arcade machines/gambling/alcohol/AAA game franchises.

Re:I agree w/McMillen a bit (1)

Purity Of Essence (1007601) | more than 3 years ago | (#34342174)

It is almost exactly the same as gambling, slot machines in particular, although they are far more effective and never have to provide the illusion of a chance for a real monetary reward. In some ways that's even worse.

This is unlike other games, because those remain identifiably as games when you strip away the manipulative stimulus. They are compelling on the merits of their rule systems alone. Social games don't have that quality. They take all the tricks designers use to make games more compelling, and then don't bother with the game. It's an insult to call them games at all.

Re:I agree w/McMillen a bit (1)

heathen_01 (1191043) | more than 3 years ago | (#34342314)

They are compelling on the merits of their rule systems alone.

Sure some are. I was referring to the games that are just "click to continue" movies with scenes like: You have found an injured man enter your CC details to hear what he has to say.

Re:I agree w/McMillen a bit (1)

Huntr (951770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34342456)

People don't play these games because they are fun or challenging

People find getting the pellet fun and entertaining. You don't, I don't, others do. That's why it's a personal judgment.

Re:I agree w/McMillen a bit (1)

heathen_01 (1191043) | more than 3 years ago | (#34342502)

The argument here is that they are unable to make a personal judgment due to the game companies "using sophisticated psychological tricks".

Re:I agree w/McMillen a bit (2, Insightful)

Huntr (951770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34342684)

They are entirely about separating you from your money using sophisticated psychological tricks.

The only difference between social games and any other form of entertainment is sometimes the tricks aren't all that sophisticated. Entertainment is all about separating the consumer from his money. I don't think the MPAA is a "better" content provider than Zynga simply because they use movie posters and TV spots.

Re:I agree w/McMillen a bit (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 3 years ago | (#34342846)

And no reason to tie this down to entertainment, either. Marketeers in all walks use numerous psychological tricks to encourage people to part with their money. If one becomes addicted to these kinds of game and feels it is a detriment to their lives, they should seek help, just like someone who becomes addicted to shopping. For the vast majority of people it's not an issue - we all know the tricks and we largely live with them already. It's only because the medium is new to a lot of people that this is even news, if it was a story about how supermarkets use certain music or floor tile patterns to influence buying decisions nobody would even care.

Re:I agree w/McMillen a bit (4, Interesting)

hyphz (179185) | more than 3 years ago | (#34342566)

The problem is that if you start looking at things that way, every game fits into the same category. Super Meat Boy is _all_ about skinner-box conditioning of reflexes and observation. Yes, it's tremendously satisfying when you finish a new level by pulling off moves you'd never have though possible, but what you're experiencing there is the result of operant conditioning on muscle memory.

Thing is, skinner boxes provide something that we need. Here's a quite from David Wong of Cracked that sums it up:

"As shocking as this sounds, a whole lot of the "guy who failed all of his classes because he was playing WoW all the time" horror stories are really just about a dude who simply didn't like his classes very much. This was never some dystopian mind control scheme by Blizzard. The games just filled a void. Why do so many of us have that void? Because according to everything expert Malcolm Gladwell, to be satisfied with your job you need three things, and I bet most of you don't even have two of them: Autonomy (that is, you have some say in what you do day to day); complexity (so it's not mind-numbing repetition);and connection Between Effort and Reward (i.e. you actually see the awesome results of your hard work).

Most people, particularly in the young gamer demographics, don't have this in their jobs or in any aspect of their everyday lives. But the most addictive video games are specifically geared to give us all three... or at least the illusion of all three.
[...]
The terrible truth is that a whole lot of us begged for a Skinner Box we could crawl into, because the real world's system of rewards is so much more slow and cruel than we expected it to be."

Part of the problem is that economics has reached the point where going for top jobs actually involves irrational behaviour. Tim Harford wrote in The Undercover Economist that the incredibly high wages in top jobs are not just to reward the people in the jobs, but to incentivize others into working to try and get them. The idea is that if I offer you $100 for a job or $200 if you work hard, you'll probably work hard, because the reward is right there. If I offer you $100 for a job or, if you work hard, a 1% chance of getting $200 , you won't work hard. But if I offer you $100 for a job or, if you work hard, a 1% chance of getting $1bn, your brain will tell you to work hard because the reward is so high that any slender chance is a good thing. Problem is, 99% of the time, you don't get the reward no matter how big it is, so that decision making process turns out to be an irrational cognitive bias.

And that process has trickled down over time and become embedded in our collective psyche. Why were computer games seen as so dorky in the 80's? Because it was really easy to believe that there was a better alternative. Now, society has started to realize that it is being sold a pup. Yes, I could spend that time learning guitar, or learning to draw, or learning another language. But I know that the vast majority of musicians, artists, and translators are unemployed or sporadically employed or even working for free. Furthermore, most people in those fields will tell you that if you don't enjoy just the process of playing guitar (or whatever), there's no way you'll do it often enough to get really good. So why shouldn't I just do what I enjoy instead?

Don't look at the games. Look at the society.

Re:I agree w/McMillen a bit (1)

heathen_01 (1191043) | more than 3 years ago | (#34342636)

So people are unhapy with their lives/jobs and thus susceptible to psychological manipulation. Consumers ripe for the picking. What could possibly be wrong with taking advantage of that and fooling the weak minded into handing over their cash for the promise of "doing what they enjoy"?

Re:I agree w/McMillen a bit (1)

hyphz (179185) | more than 3 years ago | (#34343612)

Um, they can pay to get to do what the enjoy (as an illusion, but that's the best society can do), or not pay and carry on being miserable (it's not the game makers' fault that they are miserable). How is that immoral?

Re:I agree w/McMillen a bit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34342954)

A 1 in 100 chance of making $1bn or a definite reward of $100? I think my brain would be making the right choice going for the former, actually. That's an average of $10m each over a reasonably large sample; it's tens of thousands of times better odds than playing the lottery, that doesn't seem like an irrational choice at all. If you'd said something like $5k your point might have made more sense (since the average then would be less than the definite reward, but it would seem like a better choice because of the disparity in reward).

Re:I agree w/McMillen a bit (1)

hyphz (179185) | more than 3 years ago | (#34343590)

_If_ it's a lottery where you can play many times, then yes.

But if getting that 1% chance is going to involve devoting 25 years of your life to getting good enough to qualify for one of the scarce jobs available (whether you get one of those jobs or not, being the 1% chance), then no. After all, you can only play 3 or maybe 4 times before you die.

Re:I agree w/McMillen a bit (1)

mounthood (993037) | more than 3 years ago | (#34343538)

Clay Shirky suggested that society was "drunk" on TV because of all the free time we had, but didn't know what to do with. Change TV to Solitaire or Minesweeper or "online social games" and just looks like the same pattern: there's a void to be filled.

Re:I agree w/McMillen a bit (1)

Z8 (1602647) | more than 3 years ago | (#34353546)

The problem is that if you start looking at things that way, every game fits into the same category.

No, it doesn't. The Jonathan Blow video in the post you're responding to addresses all this through some interesting thought experiments.

The differences between chess and a slot machine are matters of degree to some extent—so what, chess is still a deeper game. People choose to consume both cocaine and vegetables—there is still a very important difference between drug dealers and organic farmers.

Sure, you're probably right that if jobs were more satisfying fewer people would use cocaine and more would eat broccoli. But there are still ethical issues with drug dealing (to put it mildly).

Re:I agree w/McMillen a bit (2, Interesting)

Dr. Spork (142693) | more than 3 years ago | (#34344258)

So I just watched the whole talk by Jonathan Blow, and I'm pretty impressed with his analysis. As someone who teaches ethics and loves gaming, it's a bit humbling to be blindsided by some of those ideas. ("Why didn't I think of it that way before I heard the talk?") The point that hit home is the idea that commercial game design is inconsistent with a respect for the valuable projects of the user. If the goal is to appeal to the evolutionary weaknesses of the human character to trick them into forking out money, that really isn't more moral than any other blatant con. Motives matter in ethics, and it really seems (judging from the product) that the motives of Farmville designers are based around farming money from the players, rather than giving them an experience that would be fun or in any other way worthwhile. They're not thinking at all about doing right by the user, and wouldn't be bothered if the most profitable game mechanic caused pain rather than pleasure, because pleasure was never their goal. That's a classic example of treating people as a means to an end, and there are interesting and deep reasons why we should suspect that it might be straight up immoral. Blow is a revolutionary because he aims explicitly to make games that respect his users, but the real question is: Why is something that should be considered morally obligatory also considered revolutionary? Maybe this is just how capitalism works. Maybe we'll all buy EA's neural implants and humanity's last generation will be a bunch of blissful wireheads [wikipedia.org] .

Re:I agree w/McMillen a bit (1)

hyphz (179185) | more than 3 years ago | (#34344636)

Also, how many times did Jonathan Blow manage to basically say "I'm better than you" during that talk? :)

Re:I disagree w/McMillen a bit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34344522)

One is a game constructed with a genuine desire to make something fun for the player. While the storyline and gameplay may be optimized (some would say bastardized) to appeal to the broadest possible demographic to maximize sales, the intent is still to entertain the player.

One is a game constructed with a specific engineering goal to find and integrate known human psychological weaknesses to make the game maximally addictive to extract the most possible money from each player. With malice aforethought, the entertainment of the player is made secondary to reinforcing this addiction.

If you can't see a difference between the two, you are lost already.

Re:I disagree w/McMillen a bit (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34344694)

The same could be said of so much of what we do, particularly entertainment-related spending. Whether or not something is "worthwhile" is a very personal decision. People spend millions on non-social gaming and what do they get from it? The entertainment experience, same as with social games, same as with gambling, same as with watching sports or movies or observing art. You don't end up with anything tangible, but the experience is worth every penny to you. Some endeavors are more accepted as worthwhile by society or have generally agreed upon benefits, but the perception of value still varies from person to person. JMO.

I disagree.

When was the last time you ever heard someone playing an offline game, or gambling, or watching or playing sports, or watching movies, or observing art or anything refer to "the grind"? The very term is an admission that you're not having fun, and gamers will readily acknowledge this, too (although they will then also claim that they're only doing it to have fun at a later point, one that, in my experience, never comes).

Now of course, the same thing exists in the offline world: a professional athlete, a professional chess player etc. will all have to "grind" and train to slowly and painstakingly become better. But here's the key difference: they get paid for it (or hope to). Gamers, on the other hand, PAY FOR the priviledge of being bored.

Re:I disagree w/McMillen a bit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34349078)

Good point. I agree. Golf or gaming - same thing.

Someone said (1)

lehphyro (1465921) | more than 3 years ago | (#34341716)

Time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.

Re:Someone said (2, Interesting)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 3 years ago | (#34341860)

But is it enjoyment if you feel compelled to waste that time?

There are people who literally pay other people to handle their Farmville account while they're on vacation. That doesn't sound like time enjoyed wasting.

Re:Someone said (1)

Rhaban (987410) | more than 3 years ago | (#34342448)

There are people who literally pay other people to handle their Farmville account while they're on vacation. That doesn't sound like time enjoyed wasting.

The one spending time is paid for doing so, and the one with the account does not spend his time with the game: There is no wasted time in that case. Money, however...

MMO vs. Social games (1)

mcfatboy93 (1363705) | more than 3 years ago | (#34341732)

weather from personal experience or from how the media talks about the difference, there is a much bigger gap in MMOs and social games like the ones you find on the iPhone and Facebook, this hole in the story is Plot. if you sit down and play farmville or mafia wars, you are only there to press buttons and talk with friends and collect rewards from those around you at the time. In MMOs like WoW or the soon to be released Starwars The Old Republic, you get a community of people who play the game for the same reason people spend all their time playing non-MMOs on their consoles.

Re:MMO vs. Social games (1)

heathen_01 (1191043) | more than 3 years ago | (#34341800)

I don't see the distinction at all. The plot may not be of the same depth however if you are not playing the game for the plot then this is a meaningless distinction.

Re:MMO vs. Social games (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34342022)

So... linear games are good, sandbox games are evil?

Hypocritical? (2, Insightful)

rekrowyalp (797421) | more than 3 years ago | (#34341804)

'People are so tricked into that that they'll actually spend real money on something that does absolutely nothing, nothing at all.' Well duh, surely buying 'normal' non-social games falls under that category too...

Re:Hypocritical? (1)

FTWinston (1332785) | more than 3 years ago | (#34341878)

Or movies, TV shows, or books for that matter? The one I'm reading at the moment tickles some bit of my brain into letting it do nothing but take up time I should otherwise be spending programming, seeing friends, doing housework and sleeping. (Not necessarily in that order, honest)

Re:Hypocritical? (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#34342562)

Does your book require you to invite 5 friends to buy a copy before you can read the next chapter? Near the end, do your friends have to accept your invitation before you can read the climax?

Re:Hypocritical? (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 3 years ago | (#34343002)

I have a feeling the constraint here is the medium, not the benevolence of the people behind it. If it was as trivial to put such a system in place with books as it is with online games, I guarantee someone would already be doing it. There are unscrupulous people in all industries, but really if you get into a game like that knowing what's required and you lack the willpower to walk away, that's only partly the fault of the person who made the game.

Re:Hypocritical? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34346002)

>Near the end, do your friends have to accept your invitation before you can read the climax?

You can reach the climax by yourself but if a "friend" accepts your invitation it's much better.

Re:Hypocritical? (1)

Criterion (51515) | more than 3 years ago | (#34375008)

Maybe the book is popular enough that I can easily find 5 people to share the story with already. If we are all ready for the end chapter they are all there, ready and waiting to accept the invite, we don't invite people who like to constantly re-read the parts about standing in fire, and everybody already knows to loot the corehounds (oops.. spoiler).

Re:Hypocritical? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34344270)

Have you ever tried FarmVille? Within the first few minutes you will see stuff like:

* offers to complete web surveys to gain more in game money (some of those have been frauds tricking you into expensive subscriptions)
* constant offers to buy more in-game money with real money if you run out of in-game money
* constant offers to spam your friends
* random daily rewards when you start the game

On top of that FarmVille runs in real-time, so your plants will die when you don't come in on a regular basis. Regular games are very different from that.

real money on nothing of value= consumerism (3, Insightful)

fantomas (94850) | more than 3 years ago | (#34341972)

"People are so tricked into that that they'll actually spend real money on something that does absolutely nothing, nothing at all"

Sounds like a general damnation on a lot of modern consumer society to me. Social media games - do nothing for you. Game console - doesn't improve your life. Clothes with logo that's considered desirable, no more efficient at keeping you warm or dry - made in the same factory in Cambodia / Vietnam as the value-label clothes probably, both made by people in terrible working conditions for a dollar a day. Special paint job on your auto - does absolutely nothing. Buying new matching table crockery or wine glasses instead of picking up second hand ones / using the ones your parents gave you from their old set - no more functionality.

Functionally, you're probably better off investing your money, buying property, buying further skills training, putting into a pension plan. But folk love spending "real money on something that does absolutely nothing".

Re:real money on nothing of value= consumerism (2, Interesting)

RazorSharp (1418697) | more than 3 years ago | (#34343170)

There is a major difference here. Movies and books, for example, have the ability to make one think and provide culture. MMOs make one NOT think. Clothes with nifty logos have two major benefits over ones that do not: quality of aesthetics and quality of materials. Lets face it, cheap clothes don't last long and are ugly. They aren't made in the same Cambodian factory as your Wal-Mart sweatpants (they're made in a different Cambodian factory -- the laborers are still treated like shit but the materials and machinery are better). Special paint jobs on a car have an aesthetic value. While, for the cost, it does seem like an absurd thing to spend money on unless your car actually needs new paint, it doesn't suck up all your time (even if you paint the car yourself, you'll spend less time than getting to lvl 80 in WoW. You'll also be practicing a real skill and actually be doing something).

A table has functional value, buying a matching one makes sense b/c it's the type of item you keep for a long time. Wine glasses have a functional value as well, and just like the table you buy ones you like b/c you plan on keeping them around.

The point of the article is that people once spent money on video games for the experience of playing video games. Starcraft and chess provide a great mental exercise involving strategy and intuition. Metal Gear Solid combines strategy, action, and great storytelling -- after completing one of those games there is much to think about (so much more than "I won!"). Sim City is educational and helps to exercise one's ability to think pragmatically and logically. Gran Turismo can be hooked up to a quality steering wheel and teach one to be a better driver. Grand Theft Auto forces one to examine American culture from a critical perspective through satire.

There are things that have value, including video games. But MMOs -- WoW, FF, Everquest, City of Heroes, ect. ect. -- these games (and their predecessors such as Diablo -- once an addiction of my own) don't do anything but turn the brain off. They get us to zone out. It's no different than reality TV, it's an utter waste of time. At least, when I play chess, I'm bettering myself. Human beings, unlike any other animal, have the ability of will. What distinguishes us from animals is our ability and decision to utilize our vast intellectual capacity. When you put 50+ hours a week into a MMO or a FPS, you're just grazing on their pasteur, willfully making yourself livestock for their farm.

Re:real money on nothing of value= consumerism (1)

Mike Mentalist (544984) | more than 3 years ago | (#34343260)

There are things that have value, including video games. But MMOs -- WoW, FF, Everquest, City of Heroes, ect. ect. -- these games (and their predecessors such as Diablo -- once an addiction of my own) don't do anything but turn the brain off. They get us to zone out. It's no different than reality TV, it's an utter waste of time. At least, when I play chess, I'm bettering myself.

This is nonsense. Top-end raiding in these MMOs requires a high degree of teamwork, co-operation and strategy.

Re:real money on nothing of value= consumerism (3, Insightful)

DeadboltX (751907) | more than 3 years ago | (#34344732)

So playing chess, which is just memorization of moves and move possibilities in advance, and the ability to change strategy on the fly, is bettering yourself; but playing a video game, which is just memorization of moves and move possibilities in advance, and the ability to change strategy on the fly, is not?

Re:real money on nothing of value= consumerism (1)

ukyoCE (106879) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351972)

I think you've confused the article with MMOs. The article is NOT talking about MMOs like WOW, the article is talking about Farmville and the like.

WOW is a mix of the elements you laud from games like Starcraft and GTA and the "turn brain off" accomplishment reward from games like Farmville. The biggest draw to WOW isn't even the accomplishment-reward addiction, it's the social "hang out with friends" aspect.

Comparisons can be drawn between WOW and Farmville for sure, but don't conflate the article's discussion of barebones "click-reward-only" games like Farmville to games with actual gameplay, storyline, and socialization like WOW.

Re:real money on nothing of value= consumerism (1)

DMUTPeregrine (612791) | more than 3 years ago | (#34345292)

Jackson Pollock's "no 5, 1948" sold for $140,000,000. About $151 million in 2010 dollars. It just sits there, and does nothing. It's not even a picture of anything. The idea that spending real money on something that does absolutely nothing is bad means all art should be eliminated. After all, it does nothing, and why waste time on things that are of no value?
The whole idea that non-functional things are inherently valueless is a farce.

Re:real money on nothing of value= consumerism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34345484)

By what metric (or yardstick) do you determine if someone's life is improved or not by what they decide to spend money on? Maybe things that "do absolutely nothing" may actually improve their lives in unseen ways presumably known to them. Not always, to be certain; after all there is still buyer's remorse or some other reason someone must spend money unwishfully.

Keeping pretty flowers, removing litter, putting food in a local artist's belly by buying his paintings, listening to music, reading fiction, having wine with dinner, going on dates etc. can all be pedantically argued as not improving one's life. (I do almost none of those things, but they seem like harmless forms of consumerism.)

But what is the point, after all, of investing one's money and furthering one's skills and so on? Is it merely so we can keep functionally warm and watered and fed to spend the remainder of time agitating for more perfect economic systems or governance, lest one be seen as enjoying bread and circuses or trivial pursuits from time to time?

I thoroughly agree with you (1)

fantomas (94850) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351478)

Well said. I thoroughly agree with you. Philosophical musing on the meaning of life is a valuable thing to do. Many people have come up with some great ideas as a result. My philosophy is to try to lead my life to the full and help others as well. But I also spend time slacking reading and posting on slashdot as well as other things ;-)

Misleading headline (1)

srussia (884021) | more than 3 years ago | (#34342050)

I thought they were talking about those games called "elections" between teams called "Republicans" and "Democrats".

That last line in TFS rang true though: 'People are so tricked into that that they'll actually spend real money on something that does absolutely nothing, nothing at all.'

Red vs Blue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34345028)

"Two Frags in two seconds -- Excellent"

  -- Via Quake Live

This method would cut costs significantly

Cow Clicker (1)

lyinhart (1352173) | more than 3 years ago | (#34342182)

I like that they talk at length about Cow Clicker, the only Facebook game I actually "play." It's a hilarious parody of other Facebook games with its ridiculous "reward" system that almost requires you pay money to get more clicks (1000 clicks for a Bronze cowbell!) and to make progress. Ian Bogost captures the whole psychology behind these kinds of level grinding games perfectly:

Why not get some mooney and go buy a new cow? Don't you want to collect them all? That's the sort of thing people seem to do. The available cows will change over time, thus there's some chance you might miss out. How would you live with yourself?

Bogost has also posted a funny send-up of the Wikipedia donation advertisements that have been popping up as of late:

I was led to believe that social games on Facebook were also sure things, money-printing machines that make piles of riches for their asshole creators, creators who demonstrate as little or less care for craft and experience as I have tried to do. Yet, where's my fleet of holstein-spotted Teslas? Where's my new sub-basement with walk-in freezers for endless sides of Kobe? Where's my closetful of bespoke calf leather suits? Damn you all, you cheapskate bastards... Please consider foolishly spending real, hard currency on Cow Clicker.

Entertainment is hard to quantify (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 3 years ago | (#34342932)

Social or not, a game is selling entertainment. How do you put a price on fun ? Sure, you can try to compare one source of fun with another, like say a $20 game vs a $60 game, but ultimately it all boils down to what you feel like doing at that point in time.

Myself, I still play WoW, very lightly. I pretty much show up for the guild's two weekly raid nights and that's all. I'm not collecting achievements or farming trade goods, I just get in, spend a few hours with a handful of people I've gotten to know over the years, and get out. If those people were to quit, I'd quit too.

The fact that a dinky little Flash game can rake in cash, well that's just common sense, in the sense that a great majority of people are suckers. The recent flood of "pay 2 win" style games is proof that there are still plenty of suckers in this market. Sure, it's unethical, but you'll find the same greedy antics in the real world, where all but the most righteous businessfolk seek to prey on people's selfish urges.

"Gotta Catch 'Em All" (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 3 years ago | (#34343774)

This predates MMO games. Pokemon ("Gotta Catch 'Em All") produced the same mindset. There were predecessors to Pokemon, but it was the first one to get huge. Arguably, Wizards of the Coast introduced this genre with "Magic, the Gathering" in 1990. Collectable cards have been around for about a century, but they were usually tied to real-world sports. Wizards of the Coast detached them from that world and made then stand alone.

Wizards of the Coast, however, managed not to be slimeballs. Zynga (Farmville, Mafia Wars, etc.) has a slimy history. [techcrunch.com]

Game with Meat... but is it a good idea? (1)

nsxdavid (254126) | more than 3 years ago | (#34343944)

Yeah, so we set out to do something about it. We spent 20 months building Fantasy University on Facebook (now in open beta).

One of the things we did was decide we'd make a game first, and layer on only the minimal trappings of social game mechanics. There was a gnawing feeling all along, coupled with data from those who knew better, that this would be a tough road.

The good news is we did create a game that's got tons of depth, serious game play mechanics and great content that can be entertaining all by itself. But our microtrans and social elements remain rather unsophisticated. At least if you measure them by the so-called psychological tricks that are used. Sure we give some benefits for having your friends play and such, but its not about that.

So is that a good idea? We have a promising start, but it's too early to tell much. But I can see that massive volume is all about playing the meta game with those who come to your app. And I'm not certain that's the sort of business we want to be in....

So we are in a bit of quandary on which way to take it.

Re:Game with Meat... but is it a good idea? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34362618)

Yeah but with your past experience with MUDS, you understand the social and gaming hurdles more than you probably think you do. Keep up the good work, very fun game.

-Random GS player.

Gambling is better (3, Interesting)

chord.wav (599850) | more than 3 years ago | (#34347398)

Somehow, Farmville and the likes, managed to be more addictive than gambling, with less excitement and absolutely no chance of getting your money back by exploiting every cognitive error or bias they can.

For example: Same thing the Lost series did with many. You watch 3 seasons and the quality of the episodes start to decay really fast. Yet, you keep watching it until it ends, cause you don't want to "lose" the "invested time".

We aren't victims. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34391862)

I thought I had it all figured out. But now I have some questions...which as I re-read...have turned into a rant...

Where the heck does it say that money should be held in a higher regard than keeping me busy or entertained in the evening? If that is the case, why am I paying my cable bill and my phone bill?

Since when is making people want to return to something bad? What about t.v. "cliffhangers" during which they sell products with commercials? Should the moral developers produce games that people aren't interested in playing?

With regard to on-line friends and real-life friends, it seems to me I have to tell my mom I can't talk to her over the phone anymore, because she is "on-line" and my relationship with her is not as important as the casual acquaintances I see locally every day.

Is it far better for me to talk to someone face to face about sports or something I have a mild interest in, or to talk to someone online about the game we are playing, that we are both more interested in? Why don't I feel that way? Am I normal?

I find it funny that people who watch entertainment (t.v., sports and movies) and socialize (facebook, talking at the bar while you watch) can be critical of MMO's. When you MMO you are socializing and being entertained at the same time. Not only that, you are making a story, not just watching one being spoon-fed to you. Don't hate us because we evolved a little farther than you have. Maybe you'll catch up next generation.

Isn't the real point of playing a game like Farmville, not the playing of Farmville, but rather being able to tell your friends who play Farmville, that you play it too? Just like, the "entertainment" in watching some sports games or tv shows is not in the game or show itself, but in the discussing it later with people you know.

"On-line" is not a place outside of the real world. The computer is a box made up of plastic and wire (not to trivialize the amazing people who have created it and continue to develop it), just like your television and telephone. It physically sits on your desk and connects with other plastic and metal boxes that sit on other desks and in other rooms.

We need to stop thinking of the computer and "on-line" as a place. We don't "go to online" and the people we talk to aren't "in online" they are at home or at the office or at Starbucks. They are real people and the relationships you have with them are real. When you are a jerk or when you are thoughtful it affects emotions in a real person sitting in front of the plastic and metal box, not a computer program triggering electrical events inside the box.

Online games are not driving an addiction and enslaving people. Our "everyone is a victim" social mentality is flat wrong. The games fill needs.

The people who play facebook games are the same people who post messages on facebook. These are the same people that derive some value from telling everyone that they are feeling "sneeky" that day or the roast beef sandwich they made was "tasty." People have networks of friends to satisfy an inner need to feel we belong to a group. People play these games because they are popular....just like they decide to buy whatever is "in style" intentionally.

Some people like strategy or talent based games. Some people want the challenge of clicking the right buttons in the right sequence or approaching a tricky situation and figuring out how to best survive it. Some people would rather not put that sort of effort into a game. That is effort for them and not entertainment. These games that get YOU nothing, get others something.

I'm posting anonymously, because if I go through the trouble of setting up an account, I'll post here all the time and that will cut into my MMO time. You have to have priorities.

   

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...