To build on that a bit, I think one of the main issues with comparing one's own experiences with others' is that each person's brain is wired differently, so how one perceives, internalizes, and reacts to an experience is not necessarily how someone else does. I think it's the same kind of thing that makes one person like a food that another person hates, or that causes one person to like thriller movies while another doesn't. In the same way, I think one person can spend a lot of time and money on an activity responsibly and positively, while another person has a higher chance of succumbing to deleterious interactions that become habit or addiction. However, the fact that some people can enjoy a game responsibly doesn't really excuse the game maker from taking advantage of those who can't.
>However, the fact that some people can enjoy a game responsibly doesn't really excuse the game maker from taking advantage of those who can't.
I agree with what you're trying to say, but not with this statement in particular. I think it is possible to create a lovely game that unfortunately ropes in an addict as a side effect, but that isn't what the industry is about right now.
Game development conferences have been strewn full of talks specifically aimed at exploiting human psychology to generate additional profit - triple A games are designed around addictive loops constructed to provide maximum addiction and resource extraction for a minimum of game assets. I recall one slide in particular that measured the amount of profit per MAU and listed different game mechanics (PvP adds 10 cents per MAU, adding a fake rate-limit to your game adds 15 cents per MAU, cosmetics adds 7 cents per MAU, applying negative effects to your friends for your non-participation adds 13 cents per MAU, etc.) within a year, almost every large mobile game offering contained ALL of the mechanics on the list - and now their prevalence has leaked into other markets as well.
Accordingly, I'd say it isn't justifiable to build intentionally exploitative addictive systems just because some people can moderate their designed negative effects.
> I agree with what you're trying to say, but not with this statement in particular. I think it is possible to create a lovely game that unfortunately ropes in an addict as a side effect, but that isn't what the industry is about right now.
I don't think you're actually disagreeing. Taking advantage, as I put it, implies intent. To incidentally benefit from the consequences of an unfortunate side effect is not equivalent to taking advantage of the effect.
> Accordingly, I'd say it isn't justifiable to build intentionally exploitative addictive systems just because some people can moderate their designed negative effects.
This is the same statement in different words. "Exploit" is probably a more direct word to characterize the sentiment.
