Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hi, I’m from the games industry. Governments, please stop us

positech.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 245 posts

Re: Hi, I’m from the games industry. Governments, please stop us

#131

Post by wildmusings »

peterashford wrote: post #62
adrtessier wrote: post #12

> "We need to reign this stuff in. Its not just psychological warfare, but warfare where you, the customer, are woefully outgunned, and losing. Some people are losing catastrophically." I strongly disagree with this statement. I am very aware of the psychology behind marketing and advertising, and anyone with half an interest in it has probably read Vance Packard's The Hidden Persuaders , which was released, oh, 58 y…

The whole free-to-play market is premised on exploiting the psychology of a few people with cash and very little self control ("whales"). As a game developer, I think it's pretty slimy.

To put a slight spin on the aphorism: there will always be someone to part a fool from his money.

There's tons of laws to protect people from false advertising, fraud, and such. But if, armed with the facts and all of these protections, someone still spends their money unwisely, that's no longer the government's problem. To use another aphorism: you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

Re: Hi, I’m from the games industry. Governments, please stop us

#133

Post by [deleted] »

wildmusings wrote: post #125
bduerst wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is not putting money into his hobby. If you buy $30k worth of golf clubs, you have $30k worth of golf clubs. If you put $30k into a kickstarter project for some digital assets exclusively in a piece of software that isn't even written yet, you don't own that. That's not putting $30k into a hobby, but giving $30k to someone without even a contractual obligation for delivery. It's exactly why the SEC won't let non-a…

If I want to spend $100,000 on ephemeral virtual items in a video game that might never actually be released, that's my problem, not the government's. I'm the one that earned the money, so I'm the one that decides how to spend it. It's totally inappropriate for the government to insert itself between two informed and consenting parties. A paternalist government is not compatible with a free society.

[deleted]

Re: Hi, I’m from the games industry. Governments, please stop us

#134

Post by ethbro »

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #124
ethbro wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm amazed you're the first (or highest rated) one to mention addictive drug control. It's a pretty clear analogy. And I think the point is more directly made by the effect on the individual themselves. The reason unreasonably addictive drugs should be illegal isn't to save me the safety issues of addicts: it's the respect the addict's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - qualities which are substan…

Nothing like respecting individual rights by bringing the wrath of the criminal justice system on anyone who dares exercise their right to self-ownership by altering their state of consciousness. The purpose of a drug policy is not to reduce consumption rates. Consumption is not intrinsically bad. My use of the dangerous and potent drug known as theobromine (translation: I eat chocolate) is not itself the problem. A…

I believe you mistook my comment for support of the current drug control system in the United States, when I really said nothing of the sort. The purpose of a drug policy is (ostensibly) and has always been to reduce consumption rates -- look at any of the public support / speeches since the policies were begun (going back to Temperance / Prohibition). That that purpose is ill served by the current effective policy has nothing to do with the reason the public supports the idea.

> A higher rate of consumption of pure and unadulterated drugs with active health and rehabilitation initiatives is preferable to lower consumption but with autistically intervening in people's self-ownership through use of the police and penal apparatus

I'd absolutely agree with this, although I'd argue that a higher-rate of consumption is not in and of itself beneficial. If you're telling me that a teenager deciding to try heroine is "individual rights", then that's crap. Addiction differences between various compounds are well known ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_dependence#Risk_fact... ).

Are you saying there's no potential at which a drug should be illegal? A 100% addictive drug? A 50% addictive drug? 25%? 5%?

Imo, there's a point where socially we can absolutely say, "No, that thing is too dangerous to let you have without precautions." I'd be in favor of allowing people to sample those substances if they went through a course to earn the right to do so. You want to try heroin? Fine, but let's as a society make sure this isn't an impulse action and is something you're sure you want to do (and are aware and willing to accept the consequences of).

If you're taking individual rights umbrage at my support of a drug control policy, then look at it this way: if addictive drugs were legal and fully unregulated, who do you think the majority of the profits would go to? Hint: Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Merck...

Do you really trust them to freely market a compound that has 10%+ addiction capture rate?

Re: Hi, I’m from the games industry. Governments, please stop us

#135

Post by ZenPsycho »

wturner wrote: post #53
LukeB_UK wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gambling is the same yet there are a whole host of things that governments have done to try and help protect consumers.

Gambling isn't the same because the money users spend isn't used as a bet for a real-world money return. That is why when this stuff goes to court it gets thrown out.F2P relies on pure psychology and large sums of marketing dollars.

what about the gambling apps that, from top to bottom are exactly a slot machine with the only difference being that you can't get money out, only facebook trophies?

Re: Hi, I’m from the games industry. Governments, please stop us

#136

Post by [deleted] »

necessity wrote: post #34
stefantalpalaru wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People know what pushes their buttons, too, and we have a name for it: interest. Not "manipulation". Certainly not "psychological warfare". So if people are interested in Ponzi schemes or magical remedies, the state should not interfere, right?

Ponzi schemes and magical remedies promise you something in exchange for your money and do not deliver. If they were advertising a game in which for $x you get A and B and you don't in fact get it, then yeah, intervention is required. That is not what the article is supporting, though.

[deleted]

Re: Hi, I’m from the games industry. Governments, please stop us

#137

Post by zxcdw »

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #111
zxcdw wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Note that I am not the person you replied to.) I do honestly feel that there should be a law against that in the society which I live in, since I find such actions taken by the restaurant owner to be manipulative and purposefully deceptive (excuse me for not coming up with better terms, I am not a native English speaker), knowing that many people -- not all of them, but many -- thus end up drinking far more than the…

I am not arguing for giving up the notion of personal responsibility, but But you are. When you get to micromanaging such trivialities, there's no limit what a planner's mentality will settle on next. A ban on restaurants that offer salty free lunches with every purchase of beer because they're relying on the customer to make up for it by ordering drinks. It is absolutely not fraud. A happy hour was advertised, and t…

> But you are.

No, I am not. You're seeing binary where there is none. My point is not to abolish the notion of personal responsibility, but to acknowledge that there is more to human behavior and decision making than cold, rational free will.

> When you get to micromanaging such trivialities, there's no limit what a planner's mentality will settle on next.

This is a slippery slope argument.

> It is absolutely not fraud.

And I never claimed it was a fraud, why would you interpret it that way? Or do you feel I communicated my point regarding fraud poorly?

> The property owner may deliberately arrange the environment so as to maximize an expected consumer end.

This is where we disagree at. I do not believe that the property owner may do whatever they wish within their property. I believe there should be laws limiting what and how the property owner may arrange their property -- to defend the customers from themselves, just as there are laws limiting for example gambling, or selling of alcohol and other drugs.

> Taking your logic of needing to regulate any "misleading action" to its conclusion will only entail the abolition of the market economy.

Sure, if you take it to the extreme, and in that case then perhaps and if so, I am personally fine with that. I have no personal stake -- or ideology -- in free market economy. It is a mere implementation detail, not an end in itself.

> (Moreover, expecting that consumers are morons who cannot regulate their own behavior will generally lead to policymakers drafting proposals that assume as such and end up fulfilling the prophecy on their own, since the resulting bureaucracy will be internalized by consumers in their expectations.)

It is about acknowledging that among consumers there are individuals who are vulnerable to various lures (in lack of a better term, but consider alcohol as an example), and that I do personally view exploiting such vulnerabilities as unethical and hence I propose regulation. And I am speaking as someone with social problems due to not having enough control over my own actions regarding certain matters. Thus, I greatly fail to externalize this matter to "them" who "can't control themselves".

Re: Hi, I’m from the games industry. Governments, please stop us

#138

Post by bduerst »

wildmusings wrote: post #125
bduerst wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is not putting money into his hobby. If you buy $30k worth of golf clubs, you have $30k worth of golf clubs. If you put $30k into a kickstarter project for some digital assets exclusively in a piece of software that isn't even written yet, you don't own that. That's not putting $30k into a hobby, but giving $30k to someone without even a contractual obligation for delivery. It's exactly why the SEC won't let non-a…

If I want to spend $100,000 on ephemeral virtual items in a video game that might never actually be released, that's my problem, not the government's. I'm the one that earned the money, so I'm the one that decides how to spend it. It's totally inappropriate for the government to insert itself between two informed and consenting parties. A paternalist government is not compatible with a free society.

The reason we have "paternalistic" organizations like the FTC and SEC is because many parties make informed, consenting agreements, and don't obligate them. How are you going to enforce your $100k agreement without a "paternalistic" organization?

Consumer rights and protections are what creates scalable trade by enabling trust in our society.

Re: Hi, I’m from the games industry. Governments, please stop us

#139

Post by [deleted] »

purpled_haze wrote: post #114
adrtessier wrote: post #12

> "We need to reign this stuff in. Its not just psychological warfare, but warfare where you, the customer, are woefully outgunned, and losing. Some people are losing catastrophically." I strongly disagree with this statement. I am very aware of the psychology behind marketing and advertising, and anyone with half an interest in it has probably read Vance Packard's The Hidden Persuaders , which was released, oh, 58 y…

> how would one even decide where the line between manipulative consumption and social signaling is? The mean amount of money spent and time played per week per user would be a good place to start. If any user is spending more than $40 USD/week on a game or more than 20 hours/week playing a game, it's a problem.

[deleted]

Re: Hi, I’m from the games industry. Governments, please stop us

#140

Post by vezzy-fnord »

ethbro wrote: post #134
vezzy-fnord wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing like respecting individual rights by bringing the wrath of the criminal justice system on anyone who dares exercise their right to self-ownership by altering their state of consciousness. The purpose of a drug policy is not to reduce consumption rates. Consumption is not intrinsically bad. My use of the dangerous and potent drug known as theobromine (translation: I eat chocolate) is not itself the problem. A…

I believe you mistook my comment for support of the current drug control system in the United States, when I really said nothing of the sort. The purpose of a drug policy is (ostensibly) and has always been to reduce consumption rates -- look at any of the public support / speeches since the policies were begun (going back to Temperance / Prohibition). That that purpose is ill served by the current effective policy h…

The purpose of a drug policy is (ostensibly) and has always been to reduce consumption rates

I should have said effective drug policy. Focusing on consumption rates is indeed what most people do, and it's completely wrong.

Are you saying there's no potential at which a drug should be illegal?

Hypothetically speaking, no. In practice, all attempts at providing classifications for which drugs to ban and which to keep legal are based on purely subjective and unscientific slippery slopes. With such a variety of narcotics, it's practically inevitable to see such regressions.

My example of theobromine in chocolate is a good one, I think. Nobody thinks anything of it even though strictly speaking it's quite toxic (though obviously negligible in the dosages it's consumed).

As such, if not legalize everything, legalize some of the higher profile psychoactives and stimulants and just decriminalize (levy a fine for) all the rest.

if addictive drugs were legal and fully unregulated, who do you think the majority of the profits would go to? Hint: Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Merck...

Oh, so you'd rather they go to Los Zetas and Sinaloa Cartel?

Do you really trust them to freely market a compound that has 10%+ addiction capture rate?

We already do so for a variety of psychotropics, analgesics and so forth. The difference is we think of it as "medicine" rather than "drugs" and as such our perceptions are distorted. Yet the cost of vulnerable people getting high off over-the-counter drugs is pretty negligible. It takes no effort for a teen to dose themselves off DXM in cough syrup.

Post reply on HN