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

171–180 of 245 posts

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

#171

Post by zxcdw »

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #151
zxcdw wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 fr…

I do not believe that the property owner may do whatever they wish within their property. Then you don't really support property rights. I mean, certainly, property owners must be within the bounds of the common and civil law framework of their jurisdiction. Limiting how property is internally arranged is a wholly different matter, it's a direct veto on how someone schedules their production structure for no reason b…

> Then you don't really support property rights.

Or we simply disagree what rights and liabilities the property owner should have in the context, which I define as business property. I see no problem with this as there are many countries with extensive liabilities and regulations when it comes to property and business practices one is allowed to conduct.

> By protecting customers from "themselves" and thus also protecting owners from customers, you are curtailing rights of both to engage in voluntary contract.

Oh I indeed am, or I at least am not opposing regulation in this matter from any ideological perspective. I don't see such regulation as inherently bad, as it seems that you see.

> It's not at all an "implementation detail," it arises quite organically out of interpersonal exchange.

Many things arise "quite organically" from individual actors acting for their own benefit, but in many cases it can be argued for that there are places and times where regulation (governmental or otherwise) does indeed improve the society and the lives of the people within it.

> You know what I loathe?

I suppose I don't despite having some suspicions, but please, don't assume I care either.

> You provide a case for perceived suboptimal behavior of markets, but then by proposing regulation you completely ignore the prospect of suboptimal government action!

How couldn't you say this exact same about any form of regulation within markets? And if so, to me it seems that you oppose regulation out of a principle -- and really, how you come off as suggests the same.

> You'd do yourself good by reading up on some public choice theory.

Oh, always, though I am almost certain our differing views lie somewhere else completely. I suppose you have recommendations though?

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

#172

Post by morgante »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #165
morgante wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a massive difference between fraud (promising impossible returns or cures) and advertising. Game makers aim to addict you, but they don't lie and they do give you exactly what they say they will.

I'd say it's a difference of degree, not of kind. Generally, fraud is a deliberate deception to secure an unfair gain. Advertising is this too, but usually it's harmless enough that we don't mind. Sometimes though it crosses the line. As the quote goes, "Any sufficiently advanced business model is indistinguishable from a scam." ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8227941 )

Perhaps, but if we're going to go that far we should also start regulating fashion to protect whales from themselves. It also depends immensely on a small number of people being manipulated through advertising to buy a lot.

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

#173

Post by wyldfire »

lemming wrote: post #48
vezzy-fnord wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's plenty of legal Ponzi and pyramid schemes out there right now. Amway and plenty of other multi-level marketing enterprises, for instance. As long as you're (sort of) honest about it, it isn't even fraudulent to run one. "Magical remedies". I assume you mean alternative medicine. Does this mean you're going to ban various herbs, or what?

I would be in favour of anyone selling homeopathic "remedies" being banned from calling themselves a health professional.

I don't think this relates back to the topic at hand, though. Disqualifying these games as "games" probably wouldn't have much if any impact.

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

#175

Post by TeMPOraL »

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #27
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…

Funny that this comes up. Donald J. Boudreaux wrote an entry just earlier on the same topic in response to Akerlof and Shiller's recent book: http://cafehayek.com/2015/12/the-role-of-market-forces-in-pr... There's also a bit of a double standard about how advertising is perceived. Banner ads, editorials and similar are frowned upon. Yet it's quite likely you'll interpret someone promoting a work in the comments secti…

> Yet it's quite likely you'll interpret someone promoting a work in the comments section of a site you frequent as a friendly recommendation

The difference is intent. People directly advertising in comments get downvoted, promoting something relevant as a friendly favour are upvoted, and people doing the former while pretending to do the latter are considered sleazy bastards and subject to being pruned from community if it is to stay healthy.

It really is simple. It's about trust.

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

#176

Post by jblow »

wildmusings wrote: post #160
TeMPOraL wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Laws hadn't caught up with progress in game industry yet. It's high time for it though. I understand the reluctance to regulate things, but when we have a whole industry which explicit purpose…

> we have a whole industry which explicit purpose is figuring out the best way to abuse bugs in human psychology to part them with their money, I think some reaction is warranted. The video game industry did not invent slimy salesmen. Learning to say "no" to salesmen has been a basic life skill for all of human history. Millions of people manage to do it every day. It's one of the things that parents drill into their…

You can apply all your same arguments to gambling, but society disagrees -- gambling is regulated.

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

#177

Post by purpled_haze »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #155
purpled_haze wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> 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. A small handful of surprisingly successful people spend a significant amount on games, record themselves playing them for 40+ hours a week, and make money getting others to watch. Problem?

That's an occupation. Similarly, athletes in school may spend that much time or much more playing games of one sort or another, and there's nothing wrong with that. But, if a game or its marketing was created to be addictive and that is causing harm- that's a problem.

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

#178

Post by wildmusings »

bduerst wrote: post #168
wildmusings wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laws that arm people with more information are great. I'm a big fan. I'm not a fan of laws that prohibit certain contracts no matter how informed both parties are. It's sometimes necessary when there's a huge asymmetry in power, like in landlord-tenant relationships and in standard-form contracts that waive all liability (interestingly, this is something courts have recognized as a matter of common law, even in the a…

> Civil court enforcement You had just said it's not appropriate for governments to insert itself between two informed, consenting parties, because it is paternalistic and not part of a free society. Also what does market efficiency have to do with anything? There are always going to be asymmetrical distributions of power because information is asymmetrical.

Courts enforce consensual contracts between two people. That's a basic function of government and doesn't restrict your rights, except that you must abide by your word. What this discussion is about is legal constraints on the contents of those contracts.

A lot of what the SEC and FTC do is require appropriate information disclosure to protect consumers from deception. The SEC requires financial disclosures, auditing, etc. In the FTC's own words: "Federal Trade Commission has a broad mandate to protect consumers from fraud and deception in the marketplace". The idea is to make sure people have the information that they need to make informed decisions. Not to tell them what decisions they are and are not allowed to make once they have that information.

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

#180

Post by adrtessier »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #154
adrtessier wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that is his point; that's not what Harley does, at all. H-D markets themselves as a "lifestyle brand". You don't just buy a motorcycle and you're done. You are aggressively marketed toward for a bunch of different pieces of clothing, spare parts, co-branded partnerships with automobile companies, et cetera, ad nauseum. You are effectively buying into a subculture. Furthermore, Harley-Davidson has been k…

One difference I see is that H-D subculture is not ephemeral . If H-D decided to wrap up their business and disappear tomorrow, the bikes will still be there. The clothes will still be there. The brand, the culture created around it over the years, will still exist. Contrast with the "value" whales purchase for their games that could cease to exist the moment the game company decides to shut down their servers.

What about anything else where you are paying for the experience? While not a perfect analogy, Walt Disney World comes to mind: it's a place you take your family, and you are subject to potentially spending tens of thousands of dollars there, in the parks and the hotels, on food and attractions. Amusement parks, like casinos, are labyrinthine and optimized to take your money, and food/drinks are usually extremely overpriced for the quality. Leaving souvenirs aside, is this, too, something you are against?
Post reply on HN