
If Videogames and Apps Are Addictive, Should Designers Worry about Liability? - raleighm
https://www.socialgameslaw.com/2018/07/videogames-apps-legal-liability.html
======
HNthrow22
All things that feel good and releases dopamine ≠ equally addictive.

Video games have reached levels of immersion higher than other forms of
entertainment, add real $ loot boxes to that and it's clear publishers should
worry about this, smart ones already are - Valve tracks Anti_Addiction_Rating
for users to notify/suggest they play within healthy limits:
[https://www.pcgamesn.com/dota-2/dota-2-anti-
addiction](https://www.pcgamesn.com/dota-2/dota-2-anti-addiction).

~~~
themagician
I think the strange thing that’s happened with video games is that it used to
be that you felt good because you were having fun. In this new era of micro
transactions the games aren’t even fun anymore. There is only frustration, and
then you pay to alivieate that frustration. You sometimes find yourself
sitting there say, “why am I even doing this?”

I genuinely miss gaming. When I try to get back into mainstream titles these
days I evtually hit some roadblock mechanic designed to extract dollars and
I’m just like, “This shit again?” and bail on the game.

Some developers do it right. Most don’t. There are so many games or
experiences that I just don’t think will ever exist again. I don’t know that
there will ever be another Ultima Online or EverQuest, or another tactical
shooter like Rainbow Six or America’s Army that isn’t pay to win. Or that
we’ll ever see another decent RTS ever. It sucks.

~~~
simcop2387
> In this new era of micro transactions the games aren’t even fun anymore.
> There is only frustration, and then you pay to alivieate that frustration.
> You sometimes find yourself sitting there say, “why am I even doing this?”

This is one reason I've stopped playing most games that have any kind of
online or multiplayer element. Ones that either have a really strong single
player mode or don't engage in these kinds of tactics (see civilization games)
have been the ones that I end up enjoying long term.

I've found that I end up preferring indie titles not for any philosophical
reason, but because many of them don't have the teams needed to create these
kinds of mechanisms (successfully anyway). Mobile platforms make it
significantly easier to you see it there a lot more too.

~~~
KozmoNau7
>"This is one reason I've stopped playing most games that have any kind of
online or multiplayer element. Ones that either have a really strong single
player mode or don't engage in these kinds of tactics (see civilization games)
have been the ones that I end up enjoying long term."

I've found that Darkest Dungeon is the game I just keep coming back to. No
multiplayer, no micro transactions, just you against the game. And I also
really like the dark fantasy setting and art style.

Plus it runs great on my X220i, which is nice.

------
toomanybeersies
Anything that gives you positive feedback can be addictive.

People get addicted to exercising to the point it can harm them. Yet Nike
shouldn't be liable if someone runs themselves into the ground.

~~~
bognition
If nike knowingly sold products they engineered to drive running addiction
then yes they would be liable.

~~~
closeparen
Imagine if an organization recruited children to running-centric lifestyles to
the point that it consumed their afternoons and weekends, dominated their
social lives, threatened their academic performance, and routinely imparted
injuries requiring long-term care by an associated cottage medical industry. I
bet they'd be sued into the ground.

Oh wait. That's every high school athletics program.

~~~
jumpman500
Imagine if a majority of children actually participated in these athletic
programs. Committed to physical fitness, had social lives with teammates and
didn't have health problems because they were over weight.

Oh wait. Basically every first world country has an obesity epidemic.

~~~
mrep
Anecdote, but a lot of the kids that did sports all through my high school
stopped playing when they went to college and gained weight from what I guess
was based on their passed eating habits with high activity. However, the ones
who didn't do sports all through high school mostly lost weight.

I'm not sure what the overall implications are of school athletic programs but
I definitely don't think it is as black and white as you make it out to be.

~~~
qplex
In my opinion school gym/sport classes can be very good at completely sucking
the living joy out of exercise.

Athleticism and sports should not be forced on kids. Let them run freely.

Eg. Just look at all the "free" street sports such skateboarding,
rollerblading, bmx, parkour and so on. It doesn't have to be dull, boring and
super formalized.

~~~
watwut
Most kids don't do them. Most kids don't do them regularly even if they have a
chance and do them freely.

There are classes and trainers for parkour and bmx. Free parkour is quite
often done by people who did gymnastics or similar sport as kids.

Looking around me, there are many kids who enjoy formalized sport clubs they
go to. It is not for everyone, but the idea that most find them dull is wrong.

~~~
qplex
Sure, I didn't mean that anything is intrinsically dull.

In my experience, clubs outside schools are much better because the kids
actually want to be there.

However they often push some competitive agenda to the kids, especially when
they become teenagers.

Many quit at that point because they don't have the time or motivation for it,
and there very few clubs that only do "fun amateur league" at that age.

------
donatj
So I have an honest naive question. Simply put, why are people playing Pay to
Win games to begin with?

I genuinely don’t understand where the dopamine release is? That’s what keeps
people coming back, right? And is the dopamine release for some reason
stronger than non-Pay to Win? Because if it’s not stronger, why do they play
that rather than a flat cost game? Sunk costs? Trying to keep up with friends?

I game a ton, but have never given such a game more than a couple hours, and
far more rarely money because I simply wasn’t having fun...

I’m not being judgmental, I’m trying to understand because I don’t. I’m
assuredly the weird one.

~~~
watwut
Cause they are fun, at least initially, and cheap (free). You don't care about
pay to win thing unless you are far in ladder and most people know they wont
be among top anyway. I suspect that most people mind pay to win aspect much
much less then noise about it would suggest.

Flat cost games have to be paid before trying which means that you cant just
pick them up out of curiosity.

Unless you have a lot of friends to show you, it is hard to find flat cost
game for you. Here I am projecting, I used to like games and they either
ceased to make them for me or I was not able to find them for some reason. I
was able to find pay to win I like and suit my lifestyle, after I finally
actually tried them without bias (I was initially strongly biased toward the
"mobile games must be shit" and "it is all pay to win crap" so I resisted
long).

~~~
dragonwriter
> You don't care about pay to win thing unless you are far in ladder

IME, P2W generally substantially effects gameplay and UX everywhere, because a
P2W game is invariably designed to stress you into paying. Now, there's a big
variability in the degree of impact this has, but it's pretty consistent with
the degree to which a game is P2W, not orthogonal to it.

> Flat cost games have to be paid before trying

Limited scope playable demo/intro (including multiplayer) with pay-for-full-
scope upgrade (or pay per feature which isn't P2W) have been around longer
than P2W model, and F2P with pay-for-cosmetics is also a model which lots of
games have succeeded with. The alternative to P2W isn't just flat cost games.

~~~
watwut
I never found them stressful. I don't even know which aspect is supposed to be
stressful. The ones I played a lot were literally catered to people who cant
or wont commit hours long stretches of time. I know about one stressful mobile
game, but that was not pay to win and was not successful.

Limited scope playable demo/intro were pretty much non-existent for years.
Creators argued that demo lowers sales. Which is possible, but I stopped
playing games entirely, because too many turned out not what I expected and
very disappointing after I bought.

I never understood paying for cosmetics, honestly. I would pay to support
creator, but it is not something I ever cared about and perceive as waste of
money.

------
reaperducer
Today, no.

Once health insurance companies start paying for video game addiction
treatment, yes.

~~~
anothergoogler
Porn addiction is a thing but I haven't heard of smut producers being
successfully sued for enabling it.

~~~
mickronome
There might be a difference that's worth noting. There are game designs that
are clearly engineered to create either outright addiction, or at the very
least, cravings. Porn, at least superficially, doesn't seem to attempt to
engineer addiction in a similar way, maybe because they don't need to?

While the end result might be the same, there seems to be a much clearer
intent to create addiction in some parts of the game industry, especially
where gaming and gambling meet.

~~~
wutbrodo
I'm not sure that distinction is as clear as you're describing it. Pretty much
anything that creates positive feedback has the potential to create addictive
behaviors, and (most) porn certainly isn't going for a realistic depiction of
a healthy sex life. The design of porn sites, like most content websites, are
oriented around continued usage. Trying to get people to use your product more
doesn't seem technically distinguishable to me from "engineering to create
addiction", and it's not clear to me what you think makes the two examples you
describe distinct from each other.

------
sandov
I don't understand what makes people disdain freedom so much that they'll deem
this sort of state overreach as reasonable.

Holding Tobacco producers liable is paternalist & wrong, this is almost
totalitarian.

~~~
tlb
I haven't heard a good defense of tobacco producers. For decades they
suppressed evidence that their product caused lung cancer, which seems a
rather bad thing to do. Even ultra-libertarians seem to agree that dangerous
products should be labeled as to how dangerous they are, so that consumers can
make an informed decision.

Can you summarize or link to an argument that tobacco producers did nothing
wrong?

~~~
KozmoNau7
I don't think the solution is to ban tobacco/sugar/alcohol/weed/opioids/new-
drug-of-the-day, and I honestly think they should all be legal.

The plain packaging law instituted in Australia and other places is a good way
to do it. Plainly state what product is inside the pack and the dangers it
presents. No "hip" and enticing designs to lure the impressionable, but let
people make an informed choice for themselves.

~~~
TheCoelacanth
What would the average pay-to-win game look like without the hip packaging?
Basically just a collection of buttons to click with cooldowns before you can
click the button again and a way to pay to click it sooner?

~~~
KozmoNau7
Something like that, yeah. (I know you're being sarcastic)

I'm not sure I buy the idea that pay-to-win games are anywhere near as
addictive as tobacco or alcohol or opioids or similar substances.

------
wutbrodo
I don't see much discussion of the actual contents of the article on this
thread, but in case anyone else read it, this passage stuck out to me:

> Gambling is a highly regulated industry. For example, in Indiana, regulatory
> agencies have set up voluntary exclusion programs whereby “any person may
> make a request to have his or her name placed on a voluntary exclusion
> list,” and casinos “must have procedures by which excluded individuals are
> not allowed to gamble.” Courts in Indiana and other states agree where such
> exclusionary programs are in place, casinos are only obliged to exclude
> compulsive gamblers who self-identify through the programs. Casinos are not
> obliged to “refuse service to pathological gamblers who [do] not self-
> identify.”

I generally fall pretty heavily on the "let people make their own choices"
side of the spectrum[1], but I'm always open to the argument that the
individual isn't the most effective lever with which to minimize harm. The
above is the kind of regulatory step that seems like it could do a lot of good
while avoiding a lot of the pitfalls of the approaches on both extremes.

There are some important finicky details though: how is removal from the list
handled, if allowed at all? Who bears the liability if the exclusion list is
violated, the provider or the user (in the form of criminal penalties, as with
voluntary gambling exclusion in some states)? If the latter, is this likely to
be run into the same pitfalls as criminalizing drug addiction? In the case of
videogames, is it a reasonable burden to make the user provide ID (privacy
implications and all), and if not, how do you prevent them from setting up a
new email address to circumvent their voluntary exclusion?

This is just one of the potential solutions, which IMO illustrates that
there's a lot more nuance to the discussion than many here are approaching it
with, and a lot more potential for out-of-the-box solutions, instead of simply
having to resort to pitting the values of personal responsibility and
paternalism directly against each other.

[1] For example, responsible use of certain illegal or formerly-illegal drugs
is as much (or more) an enriching part of my life as the regular consumption
of the legal drug known as alcohol is for most people. Thank god I live
somewhere that's civilized enough to avoid a heavily-enforced punitive
approach to drug use and generally fosters a treatment-oriented approach to
addictions.

~~~
robertAngst
I think the best case for not having another law/regulation is the future.

If we regulate this today, what will this country look like in 200 years?

Will we have regulations on water consumption, posture, etc...

With every regulation you need regulators to enforce it and people to write
the laws.

Now you created cronyism to pay for it... When there is profit, profit feeds
itself.

~~~
mrguyorama
Isn't that pretty much a textbook case of the slippery slope fallacy? Just
because we want to regulate something harmful, does not mean we will regulate
EVERYTHING harmful

Your logic seems flawed

~~~
robertAngst
Look at how roman politics evolved.

The use of violence to kill one political opponent spiraled into private
militaries taking over the city.

I think you either misunderstood slippery slope or my point.

------
qop
I was an alcoholic for over a decade before I found my recovery.

But I couldn't turn around and tell a distilleryman that he has to brew his
liquor a certain way.

Maybe the world would be a better place without booze. I would've had an
easier childhood, maybe. I don't think addiction is necessarily the fault of
production.

There are certain exceptions and scenarios, like cigarette marketing to
minors, marketing in lower income neighborhoods on purpose, stuff like that.

Regulation is and always will be a very slippery slope. Even a small step down
the slope can eventually compose into cataclysmic effects. It also makes it
easier for regulatory bodies to make their case fallaciously once the first
steps are taken. "You trust us with your credit card number, why not give us
your location info now?"

I'm rambling, but the video game industry could be irrevocably injured by
trying to regulate addictive content. Maybe that's not a bad thing, but we
should aim for fairness when possible, I think.

Maybe awareness for individuals that are already more vulnerable to addictive
behaviors? Like a surgeon general warning or something.

~~~
crawfordcomeaux
Alcohol poisons the body, so there are natural limits to how much one can
drink. How much one can game is limited by how well one's meeting their own
needs, eg. food, water, sleep, connection, etc.

Point being alcohol probably can't be designed to be more addictive, while
games can.

As a recovering information addict & software developer who has studied dark
designs, I can confirm people are intentionally making things with the
intention of creating addicted customers. Information and gaming of various
types is also freely available at most libraries, not to mention on all
smartphones.

Information & games are way more ubiquitously available than alcohol. They're
not comparable & recovery for behavior addictions that don't contribute to
social skills the way substance addictions often do can be a bit more complex.
Substance addicts usually learn to navigate society well; behavioral addicts
typically don't. Social connection is really important for recovery & requires
skills the addict may need to develop. I know I had to do LOADS of work on
connecting, as well as developing my emotional intelligence, since I started
addictively avoiding my emotions around age 9.

People designing things to be addictive are absolutely liable to some degree.

~~~
qop
So I've heard of dark patterns before, but wouldn't it be a logistic nightmare
to try and describe, and therefore regulate, design patterns that dont
actively injure users? I'm using injure to mean induction of the addictive
behaviors. Design is something I'd consider very subtle, and with lots of
moving parts.

Here's an example. What if Google decided that when you pull down for
notifications on android, items originating from DoubleClick should be
prioritized to the top, regardless of user settings? A lot of people who have
apps that generate advert-ifications wouldn't immediately notice the
difference but the effect would begin to work in their brains as that
consumption impulse is triggered more and more often.

Or what if they decided that same thing for the lock screen notifications?
Eventually you're fending off consumption impulses everytime you touch your
phone.

These are patterns I trust independent users, like bloggers and columnists,
enthusiasts, those sorts, to keep me informed about. I remember hearing about
the search engine nuking years ago when it actually was committed. That sort
of media is in my eyes, a decent way to inform people that they need to
mentally condition themselves to subvert the patterns.

But many never become aware of these things, and of course those are the
people usually more vulnerable to the effects of psychological conditioning in
the first place.

I'd love to hear some moonshots about how to safely and fairly try and
regulate something like design.

~~~
svachalek
Pulling down for notifications is a form of addictive behavior in itself, much
like pulling the arm on a slot machine. You might get nothing, you often get
something boring, you rarely get something great. Perversely, they can taper
off how often it pays off which makes it more addictive (deep instincts tell
us to keep trying when we know the odds are bad), which is a pattern that's
easily observed in a lot of games.

Sorting ads to the top is, as far as I know, not a mechanism for increasing
addiction so much as a way to try to monetize it. It's more likely to run into
anti-trust regulations than public health concerns in my opinion.

But as to regulation, it's likely to run behind the technology but it's not
hard to document dark patterns and write laws against them, just like bait-
and-switch and various con jobs that were well known before the Internet age.

------
InclinedPlane
Of course.

People can get addicted to anything. But when a company makes a product that
they know is not only addictive but harmful. When they go out of their way to
make the product more addictive without any regard for the harm being done.
When they go out of their way to specifically target those who are the most
addicted. Well, then you run into some very clear-cut ethics problems.

And that's the state we are in right now with a sizeable number of games.
Certainly far from all, but those who are right now being the most
exploitative are probably going to face a lot of scrutiny in the next several
years.

~~~
EdgarVerona
I agree. This entire industry needs to take a good, long look in the mirror
and ask ourselves whether the ends justify the means.

Now, I'm not saying it's a clear-cut issue. There's a lot of murky grey area
in the land of "what is entertainment?" versus "what is addiction?" And I
think culpability on a moral level - though perhaps by necessity not a legal
level - will ultimately end up being determined by the product's _intent_.

If you ever want to bum yourself out, go down the road of asking yourself why
you _really_ find the things you do for entertainment entertaining. I don't
know if it would be for everyone, but it was certainly sobering for me. As a
species, we like to think that we have many of the answers about how our brain
works and what certain things that _feel_ intuitive mean - things like
"entertainment." But I think we're actually a long way off from truly
understanding these concepts.

~~~
smt88
There's a big difference between producing something that's addictive by
accident vs. engineering the addiction.

Even in the former situation, it's reasonable to ask researchers to detect and
flag accidentally addictive mechanics.

~~~
EdgarVerona
Yes, exactly - I totally agree. That's why we both need to have an
introspective moment in our industry - where we think about what the things
we're making are _really_ doing - and why intent is so important when talking
about this issue. I genuinely do believe that a lot of companies have - for
lack of a better term - stumbled into addiction.

------
skookumchuck
It's too bad our society has moved away from the person who chose to do
something bad being liable, towards blaming people around them:

1\. bartenders are at fault for the drunken actions performed by people who
bought the booze

2\. Seattle just passed an ordinance where gun owners are liable for gun
crimes committed by people who steal those guns

3\. Employers are liable for crimes committed by employees

4\. Homeowners are liable if people do stupid things and hurt themselves on
the homeowner's property

5\. Drug makers are liable for drug users' actions

etc.

~~~
jackpeterfletch
Some amount of liability, though not completely liability makes sense for all
these things though.

1\. Its reasonable for the public and police to expect you to regulate and
secure your establishment and keep it from having a negative impact on the
community.

2\. Weapons are very dangerous and not everyone is licensed to distribute
them. Its fair of society to expect you to take reasonable measures to keep
them secure.

3\. They are liable if its found that leadership haven't taken reasonable
measures to make sure employees don't do bad things. You cant benefit from a
company's output just to turn a blind eye to what might be illegal activity.

4\. If your property isn't reasonably safe, you shouldn't be inviting people
onto it, its not fair on those people might be injured, who don't know what to
look out for.

5\. Your saying Big Pharma has nothing to answer for the opium crisis in in
the US right now? A requirement for responsible marketing and prescription of
harmful and addictive substances makes complete sense.

~~~
skookumchuck
Your post pretty much exemplifies what I was talking about. It's the notion
that if an adult decides to pull the trigger on the gun he stole, it is
someone else's fault.

Consider 1. This an overreaching and hopelessly vague statement. It could be
interpreted to mean pretty much anything.

Consider 2. I bet your home is full of dangerous things. Have you taken steps
to secure them all?

Consider 3. This is why ex-cons cannot get jobs. It's because there have been
successful lawsuits against companies who hired ex-cons, and then some of them
committed crimes. The idea is that the employer "should have known" the
employee was an ex-con and shouldn't have hired him.

Consider 4. I know of cases where a painter set his ladder incorrectly, fell
off, and successfully sued the homeowner.

Consider 5. Recently there was an HN discussion where doctors have been
pressured to simply stop prescribing opioids, thus sending their chronic pain
patients to hell.

~~~
jackpeterfletch
I guess we're talking at different levels.

Yeah some of these examples are extreme. But I think we can probably agree
that there is a balance between accepting gross negligence, and having
overzealous legislation.

------
deviationblue
Should we start holding food chemists accountable for weight gain and obesity?

Rhetorical question aside, there's a lot of stimuli competing for our
attention in any given day. Since we've created this brave new world, I think
it makes sense to educate people growing in this society to combat that. If
you're into that sort of thing. I'd liken measures against this to soda taxes
and cancer photos on cigarettes.

I think education is fine, but anything that impedes on personal agency is
annoying. I understand addiction ruins lives. But imposing blanket measures,
like soda taxes or whatever, seems like punishing others because of someone
else.

------
renjimen
There are two newer, disheartening trends in game development that feed on
people’s enjoyment of games: pay-to-win and forever-early-access. Both are
marketed as a way to support the game’s development, and in some cases that
may be true. If it’s just cosmetics that are on sale (no loot boxes) or the
developer is genuinely taking community feedback then both are bearable evils,
but so often players are taken for a ride with the cost being their money,
time and mental well-being. Companies should absolutely be held accountable
for these practises, particularly because it’s often children and adolescents
who are the victims.

~~~
robertAngst
I dont quite understand how this problem started.

Do people not know about Steam sales?

Pay to win is such an awful concept, I wont touch it. Especially since there
are literally 30 years of games and emulators to play.

For 'forever early access', you really need to be sucked into the marketing to
waste time and money on an unfinished game.

I dont want to imply I'm some sort of stone wall when it comes to marketing,
but I dont understand why people would do either of these. I've put 15 hours
into Mount and Blade since the Steam Summer Sale and I dont think I paid more
than 5 or 7 dollars.

Is this an issue of uninformed consumers that dont know whats available?

~~~
watwut
You cant buy mobile phone game on steam. You cant download steam sale game
whenever you want to and try for free.

~~~
robertAngst
I cant imagine playing mobile phone games.

Shitty controls and I'd rather use emulator and play full games on my phone.

~~~
watwut
Nevertheless, that is what most people play and enjoy.

15 hours for 5 or 7 dollars (plus PC and same for xbox etc) is pretty
expensive per mobile standards.

Through that is not the only reason I guess, steam has nothing form and had
nothing for me for years. Or at least I could not find it there, which amounts
to same thing. See, I knew about steam and spent a lot of time trying to find
game I would like, only to be frustrated. I ultimately succeeded on mobile.

Different people like different things. And yes, it is possible that many
don't know about steam or did not found there anything at the first look.
Mobile playstore is right there on device everyone owns. Steam is something
you have to know about, search and download on device not everyone has. Plus,
you still cant try games for free, so you are list in catalogue of expensive
games you have low chance to like. So if parents dont support gaming habit,
kids are out of luck to even try.

------
_pdp_
Good timing!

I would not say that apps are addictive. Some of them are be but not all.

Yesterday I was running a thought exercises around what makes Facebook,
Instagram and Twitter so popular and why people keep flocking there despite
their negatives - I certainly don't understand it. I reached to several
conclusion but the most important one was that just like cigarettes there must
be an addictive element that makes it into a rewarding experience for many
people. Think of the likes count, sharing count, comments and even scrolling
the news feed - you get a small doze of dopamine by just doing things and I
would imagine, eventually it gets so addictive that you loose perception of
time and you just get stuck in.

I would not say that the Web is addictive in general. There are some places
which could turn into an addiction but I highly doubt anyone would get
addicted to checking the forecast or searching with Google. These are very
popular utility services. The same applies with many apps and games which
provide utility: spotify, iTunes, notes recording, etc. But some apps are
specifically exploiting our addictive nature. Social networks which rank the
top lists are good example. Even this forum can be addictive in a sense that
although it provides a function it also has the concept of ratings through the
karma scores. It is gamified and that is what makes it addictive.

The sad fact is that many people in this forum are in fact in the business of
making people addicted. We measure success in terms of how well and for how
long we capture the customer's attention and if that has something to do with
emotional responses I would say it is nothing but machine for making people
addicted. Why would anyone spend 2-3 hours a day on Facebook or Instagram?
What function these platforms provide that is useful in day-to-day life? Yes
they are useful to connect with friends but this is not what they are used for
mostly. You will put effort into making great posts and shares and the reward
is the likes which I am sure is as addictive experience as it gets.

So worrying about getting customers addicted to your app or game is counter to
the goal of making the same app or game very popular and I will say that it is
also business prohibitive. You could however concentrate on ideas that are
utilities (all of SaaS) but you should also be aware that you will probably
have much tougher time ahead to make your idea into a successful venture.

~~~
robertAngst
To be fair, for something to be addictive, it needs to get better before
people get bored of it.

Apparently facebook is collapsing as people are using it less. Even with every
data on a human, they couldnt keep me around.

I actually really enjoy instagram. I have learned a lot on it.

------
Aloha
I'd be worried if I thought video games were substantively more addictive than
TV is, for example, I dont think it is.

~~~
keithnz
Well, there is old TV and new TV.... old TV you watched what you were given,
and I don't think that is very addictive compared to how addictive games can
be

Modern TV where you can 'binge' series, can be addictive (I've certainly ended
up staying way later than intended because of an exciting series ). It seems
like this is a bit more addictive than old TV.

Then there's games, which I think for many have around about the same
addictiveness as Modern TV. But some seem to get incredibly addicted, with
extreme cases like
[http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/04/01/korea.parent...](http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/04/01/korea.parents.starved.baby/index.html)

~~~
Aloha
No more addictive than not being able to put down a good book.

~~~
keithnz
thing is, books end. For a long time, most games end. But now there are lots
of games that are reptitive play games. They don't end. Books also don't tend
to have the same andrenilin rush, there are no time contraints, no other
people. I think books are very different and don't seem to lead to the same
level of problems as gaming does.

------
Thaxll
Everything is addictive, they should look into junk food / sugar for once.

~~~
hackits
Really just comes down to a argument what side of the fence you're on. Are you
the addict? (then its bad), if you're the dealer (then its good).

Mostly comes down to switching the burden of responsibility.

~~~
crawfordcomeaux
I'd say it comes down to sharing the burden of responsibility. The addict &
designer are both liable for the addict's addiction.

------
werber
I think a similar system to what the article mentioned in Indiana where you
can opt out, or more ideally set a time limit will become the norm sometime in
the 20s

------
yontherubicon
I mean, if they did, think about how much greater the risk would be for people
like PornHub.

------
stcredzero
That depends on how much the industry can spend on lobbying.

~~~
robertAngst
This is basically what I thought.

Regardless what happens I feel like the consumer will lose.

------
matheusmoreira
There are way too many video games out there that are essentially casinos. In
fact, I'd say some of those games are even worse than casinos. At least in
casinos you have the chance to actually win some money. Some mobile games I've
played were literal spending competitions between players, and we got
essentially nothing for it. After a while it's not even fun anymore but it's
pretty hard to quit because my friends and me invested so much time and money
into it.

The mechanics were well disguised and hidden behind several levels of
indirection. There's a game component which gives you resources and generally
improves your standing in the game's community. You can't just play the actual
game though; you need "stamina" to play, which is just a fancy way to describe
a timer. If you run out of stamina, you can't play again until it regenerates.
One of the reasons this timer exists is to rate limit the game. Your
progression in the game can only happen at the fixed rate dictated by the
timer. The timer resets every 8 hours or so and this acts as negative
reinforcement, creating a log-in habit: people feel like they're losing
progress and falling behind if they don't log in 3 times a day. The timer
should always be running to ensure maximum gains; every second it sits at 0 is
a second wasted. Lots of people wake up at 2 AM just to do some game tasks
that became available because the timer reset. It's insane.

What makes it a spending competition is the fact you can pay to reset the
timer. This means non-paying customers are stuck with a fixed progress rate
while the whales pay to amass ridiculous amounts of resources quickly. The
casual players who don't pay money only have a chance in the beginning. They
simply can't compete over the long term so they quit the game. This leads to a
constantly decreasing player base.

The game operators usually create hundreds of different servers. They
stabilize over the long term, with small groups of powerful players dominating
it. Eventually, they merge stable servers in order to make players compete
with each other for dominance once more. The more merges a server's been
subjected to, the harder it is to compete with the other top players and the
more money you must spend just to keep up. You might have been a top player in
the original server, but you fall by hundreds of positions after a merge, and
you're pretty much forgotten after two merges. Unless you start spending
increasingly ridiculous amounts of money, of course.

If they just merged old servers, eventually there'd be only one remaining.
That's why they create at least two new servers at the same time. It forms a
beautiful cycle. It would be perfect if every server started off with the same
amount of players every time, but games lose popularity over time. Eventually,
it will die.

I once thought the traditional PC/console video games industry would never
design money traps like these. Unfortunately, this kind of thing is slowly
becoming the norm in online games. They're not as extreme as the mobile game I
described above, but these ideas do seem to be slowly creeping into modern
online games. If this is what the future of video games looks like, I won't
shed any tears when governments regulate it.

------
joeyyang
Yes.

------
jaredhansen
Anyone who does anything sufficiently valuable to society should worry about
liability. Addictive or not, tons of value = tons of $$ = tons of envy = tons
of political points to be had by taking you down a peg.

