tl-dr

I don’t have an issue with microtransactions in games, because they provide a way to fund a lot of games that I enjoy (like League of Legends for example). My problem is when free to play games abuse the idea of microtransactions and game design to manipulate and addict their users, thereby increasing the bottom line of the company. One of the key features of having a company is to make money; I acknowledge, support, and love that. But, creating a game that manipulates users, rather than just creating a game that is fun, is a line I do not think should be crossed. There is a deep and visceral part of me that hates when game companies cross the line from compulsion to manipulation.

Zynga games (The company that has brought you blockbuster games such as Farmville! and Mafia Wars!) is the big dog on the casual/social game block, and in my view is the primary culprit of this kind of behavior.

My core problem with microtransactions (and how Zynga uses them), is that Zynga’s business strategy is one of focusing on the money, not on the games. And it’s not the money focus that’s even the problem, it’s the unethical behavior associated with how they obtain that money through games. Zynga has focused mainly on

• Metrics-led design,where game designers build games that deliver to a spreadsheet, rather than aim to delight gamers
• The exploitation of  whales, where most people play for free, but a few spend a bucketload of money

That’s the issue here: exploitation and delivering to the bottom line rather than delivering a product for users.

Quick aside: microtransactions within games (when done right), have been a great boon economically to the games industry. “China thinks so, in principle at least: it has said it wants to tax its virtual-goods market, thought to be worth around $1.5 billion a year,” stated by The Economist. ::thumbs up::

There is a right way and a wrong way to do microtransactions. The right way involves micro transactions that do not influence game mechanics. This allows for users to play the game how they wish, without influencing in-game mechanics, economies, or core competition. Having microtransactions that influence game mechanics creates an automatic hierarchy of players, those that can “pay to win”, and those that are left on the bottom.

To quote Wired: [emphasis mine]

Nobody made the case as explicitly as Zynga… And though Zynga executives claimed their games were all about bringing friends closer together, they carried a whiff of exploitation. FarmVille, Zynga’s flagship franchise, encouraged people to publicize their every action on Facebook newsfeeds and pester their friends to join them. It kept players coming back by setting onerous time limits—return in 16 hours to harvest your rhubarb or your fields would be riddled with withered stalks. And it compelled them to pay money if they wanted to avoid mindless tasks or lengthy delays.

 

This comes from an article about a game that was created called “Cow-Clicker.” It was created as a satire, a way to show people the core mechanics of what Zynga was doing.

There was a picture of a cow, which players were allowed to click once every six hours. Each time they did, they received one point, called a click. Players could invite as many as eight friends to join their “pasture”; whenever anyone within the pasture clicked their cow, they all received a click. A leaderboard tracked the game’s most prodigious clickers. Players could purchase in-game currency, called mooney, which they could use to buy more cows or circumvent the time restriction. In true FarmVille fashion, whenever a player clicked a cow, an announcement—”I’m clicking a cow”—appeared on their Facebook newsfeed.

 

Stupid right? A great way for the indie game community and others to protest and satirizethe tactics, design, and un-artistic intentions of Zynga.

And then something surprising happened: Cow Clicker caught fire… Bogost watched in surprise and with a bit of alarm as the number of players grew consistently, from 5,000 soon after launch to 20,000 a few weeks later and then to 50,000…

 

I’m torn when I try to talk about this topic at this point. The rebel and independent side of me is happy with what Bogost has created, and horrified at the masses thinking that it was a “real” game, and not satire. On the other side… am I just being elitist and snobbish when something simple is so enjoyable? What if the platform and the metaphor are changed and you look at one of my favorite genres (MMOs), and boil it down to its base mechanics, there are remarkable similarities. The aforementioned Wired article addresses this fact as well.

Nick Yee, a research scientist at PARC, the Xerox-owned innovation center, has been studying massively multiplayer online role-playing games for 12 years. He says that good games usually offer meaningful opportunities for achievement, social interaction, and challenge; otherwise, players become little more than rats in a Skinner box, hitting a button to get a jolt of reinforcement. “The scary thing about Cow Clicker is that it’s just an incredibly clear Skinner box,” Yee says. “What does that say about the human psyche and how easy it is to seduce us?”

 

The quote comes back to emphasize my initial point, games should be created to “offer meaningful opportunities for achievement, social interaction, and challenge,” and I believe adding microtransactions to core game mechanics is what turns a game from this path into the Skinner box.

If my bias against casual games begins to show through, this is the reason why. I like casual games, I enjoy playing them. My issue is with the ethics of freemium games; the developers who think it’s ok to make them, and the people that blindly play them, without realizing the consequences.

tl;dr (Some NSFW Language)

(This comic represents how many gamers feel about microtransactions, but in relation to my post, I think Valve does it right. The microtransactions don’t influence game mechanics. <3 Valve)

Ding! You’ve leveled up! Please see your local librarian for training.


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

I would like to start this post out by really stating what addiction is, and what it is not. Just doing a basic Google “Define:addiction” search, you get:

The fact or condition of being addicted to a particular substance, thing, or activity.

This does not really help to define addiction to the level that I would like to talk about it. The layperson will (in many cases) enjoy doing something, and put off or procrastinate other activities because they are enjoying that activity, and call it addiction.

“Oh man, this game is so fun that it’s addictive!”

“Geez, I’m so addicted to this game; I stayed up until, like, 2 last night!”

These are colloquialisms, and are not actually addiction. Something being enjoyable and having a huge draw does not make it addictive.

Here is a short video explaining what I mean. This is colloquial addiction as I would call it. It is possible to have a life and play the game simultaneously, and it is also possible to go overboard with playing the game; without it being an addiction. I would not call this documentary an addiction, I would call it someone who decided to change the direction of their life. The life still involves gaming (making a movie about it), and the video also contains a section where the film maker logged back into game. That’s a key point to note. When was the last time you heard of a drug addict saying “oh, I just had a quick hit for old times’ sake” and then being perfectly fine afterwards? That’s not how real addiction works.

 

Clinical Addiction

Clinical addiction is much deeper and more venomous. Addiction produces stories like this:

A New Mexico woman has been sentenced to 25 years in prison for the death of her young daughter, who withered away from malnutrition and dehydration while the mother spent hours chatting and playing World of Warcraft online.

Imagine being drawn to playing a game in such a way that you would allow yourself or your child to not eat for days or weeks. That is what is I mean by “clinical addiction.” There is no control at all; all that exists is the desire for the focus of the addiction (i.e. drugs, alcohol, a specific activity). If you end up in a homeless shelter because of playing too many video games, it’s likely that you’ve crossed the line from “playing a lot” to “addiction.”

To get into more detail, clinical addiction is: (emphasis mine)

Addiction is a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry. Dysfunction in these circuits leads to characteristic biological, psychological, social and spiritual manifestations. This is reflected in an individual pathologically pursuing reward and/or relief by substance use and other behaviors.

Addiction is characterized by inability to consistently abstain, impairment in behavioral control, craving, diminished recognition of significant problems with one’s behaviors and interpersonal relationships, and a dysfunctional emotional response. Like other chronic diseases, addiction often involves cycles of relapse and remission. Without treatment or engagement in recovery activities, addiction is progressive and can result in disability or premature death.

Please see the full definition of the American Society of Addiction Medicine to read in full about how they define addiction. It is much more comprehensive than my anecdotal examples that try to explain what addiction is. A good way to say it is there is a difference between “overuse”, “compulsion”, and addiction; where “compulsion” is the fuzzy line where it can become a behavioral addiction.

So now that I have said that I am talking about clinical addiction, and not colloquial addiction, the question becomes:

Does Video Game Addiction Really Exist?

There is no consensus on this in a professional sense, but I believe it does exist. There is no statistical evidence, but anecdotal evidence abounds.

Others have talked about it before, and in video format.  The video is ~16 minutes or so, but it is well worth your time. There are actual PhDs and video game big wigs talking about video game addiction (pretty good from a gamer site huh?).

The biggest argument that video game addiction can/does exist is the comparison to gambling addiction; down to the lights and bells and whistles to reward compulsions. If gambling addiction is considered a serious problem, should video game addiction be considered a serious problem as well? I would say “yes,” but with the same caveat that gambling has: gambling is still fine and healthy for a majority of the population; it is when gambling becomes an “addiction” that it is a problem. Same with video games.

What can be done?

I see three different realms that can focus on video game addiction for a positive outcome.

1) Video Game Designers

Video game designers can subsribe to the Google maxim of “Do No Evil” in their game design to limit the affects of addiction. This comes down to the idea of using “carrot on a stick” mechanics for compulsion satisfaction rather than compulsion manipulation. It is a very fine line, but it is the difference between the way of the Jedi or the way of the Sith, respectively.

Developers: Ask why you’re making something a certain way.

2) Enthusiast Journalists and the Community

Information has to come from somewhere, so it’s up to the community to be open and honest about issues. Educate the community, be aware of how things can go wrong. Be proactive with education and messaging rather than reactive.

3) Individuals

It is up to you (as a gamer) to be educated and aware of how video games affect you. Just like any other addict, it is a personal choice whether to be wrapped in addiction or not. Some of it might be wired into our brain, but not always. To quote the Junglist from the video I posted above, “The ability to be exploited is built into our brains,” so we must be aware of that and not fall into the traps.

You as an individual are the only one who is responsible (in the end) for whether gaming is a fun pastime, or an addiction. Let’s keep it fun!

tl:dr

If gambling can be an addiction, why can’t video games? Be proactive in preventing video game addiction!

Ding! You’ve leveled up! Please see your local librarian for training.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.