The only way they could be blackmailing you is if they said something like, "if you don't spend money, we will tell everyone on facebook how much you suck at maintaining virtual fish!"
I don't think this is exactly the case. They sell a service. Whether you deem it a service of value or not is irrelevant.
The fact someone sells a service doesn't mean it's right, proper, etc.
Gambling is heavily regulated for a reason. I would say that games like these should be regulated just as much.
Imagine going to the arcades, playing street fighter II, and it saying "We know you can't get on the score board because you suck, but if you pay $20 we'll put you at the top of the score board anyway". Would that be completely fine and above board?
Like many drugs, gambling is heavily regulated because of puritanical values, not because regulation helps reduce the social impact. These games are not gambling at all, and share no more in common with gambling than any other form of capitalism.
And yes, it would be totally fine. If you don't like it you don't have to play Street Fighter II. And given that it costs 50 cents a play and has a steep learning curve, that's effectively what they do in a roundabout way.
They share a lot. They are addictive, and the further in you get sucked, the harder it is to stop. Because of this, the further in you get, the easier it is to be exploited and taken advantage of.
I don't think it's about being puritan, it's about protecting the most vulnerable members of society from themselves.
For example, say you get 95% of the way through a game, then the game asks for $100 to get past an absolutely impossible stage, they'd probably get a fantastic amount of people spending the $100 reluctantly. Which IMHO isn't a nice way to do things.
You can't protect people from themselves, that's the problem with those laws. Research shows this time and time again. Anti-gambling laws don't protect gamblers, they just move them from safe, legal, regulated casinos to scammy underground gaming halls and instant bingo ticket parlors. Anti-drug laws don't decrease drug use, they just increase violent crimes.
But that aside, thankfully capitalism doesn't require you to find a "nice" way of doing things. I'm as addicted to shaving as any player is to a Facebook game. (We could both stop, but don't want to.) I'm even more addicted to food. But that doesn't mean Gilette and Whole Foods are scammers.
I don't think that's a good analysis. Anti gambling laws does indeed push the hardcore gamblers into underground gaming halls. But the important thing it does is stop lots of people getting hooked in the first place. Same with drugs etc.
Having said all this, it's clearly extremely lucrative to setup games like this.
It's not about entertainment or bait/switch - it's low challenge accomplishment. The 'Villes let you feel like you've accomplished something, even though all you put into it was time and money. Usually accomplishing something takes true effort and creativity, with a risk of failure, but these games are "accomplishment lite" with no risk of failure.
Yes and no. There's a school of thought that the player should be allowed to play a game any way they please, that play is a creative process and the game is a box of tools to make an enjoyable experience.
The player makes their own fun by setting themselves goals and challenges that match their personalities and skill sets (that they find enjoyable). As their skills develop (or they simply get bored) they naturally find new, different, more challenging things to do until the game can no longer satisfy them.
Zynga provide a free framework and a whole load of extras to enable people to have fun. You can progress for free according to a number of pre-designed interpretations of how you can progress in the game, or you can short-cut for cash and do the bits you really enjoy, and you spend more as you explore different options. It practically screams "revenue stream".
Obviously it's all set up to make loads of cash, but I see it as enabling fun rather than a scam or "accomplishment lite".
Oh, don't worry, I think it's practically the epitome of fun. I just think the fact that there's no challenge aside from spending time means the fun will run out quickly.
i'm actually going to agree with matt's original point. if you call an app 'stupid', then you are preventing yourself from being able to empathize with its users. if it's successful, then it is fulfilling some sort of need. by putting yourself in opposition to the people whose needs are being met, you are making it impossible to see what they get from it.
of course, the fact that matt refers to users of products he doesn't like with terms far, FAR worse than 'stupid' kind of negates his point.
That's ludicrous. Selling someone something in game is no different than selling them something in real life. Do makers of razor blades blackmail users? What about Apple with iTunes DRM?
And if you think the lottery is stupid, you should not ever work in the game design industry.
These sort of games work because they get people addicted, and then blackmail them into paying money to make the games easier for them.