>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.
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.