www.Tobold.com
Tobold@GMail.com
A blog with my thoughts regarding games I am playing and other stuff in life. Please read my Terms of Service
RSS Feed
Thursday, October 08, 2020
The ethics of exploiting stupidity
Genshin Impact is both the most generous and the most exploitative free-to-play game out there. On the one side it has no paywall, and doesn't constantly shove monetization into your face when you are playing. You can play a game that is comparable in size and quality to Breath of the Wild completely for free. If you spend any reasonable amount of money on the game, you will get more characters and thus options how to play, as well as better weapons, and faster access to some resources which you'd otherwise have to grind.
On the other hand, Genshin Impact offers you a just 0.6% chance of finding "a" 5-star character or weapon in a lootbox that costs about $1.50. So if you get obsessed and absolutely want to find a *specific* 5-star character or item, you can easily spend thousands of dollars before finding that. That sounds pretty evil. If you watch several of those videos, you'll note that each of these whales is looking for a *different* 5-star character, which shows you how much that is personal preference, and not really necessary for anything in the game.
Of course we have to assume that the reporting on these excessive spending is skewed: Much of it is done on Twitch or YouTube, where sensational behavior is rewarded by donations. For some more successful streamers, pulling a $2,000 stunt like that might actually earn them more money than what they just spent. We don't know how many "whales" there actually are in Genshin Impact, and how many of those are people who can actually easily afford that sort of spending behavior. But with millions of players, it is obvious that there must be some people who are spending more than they can afford, and the game clearly lets them do that.
In the end we need to debate in how far this is an evil ploy, or simply a reflection of the world of growing inequality in which we live in. A business model in which everything from free to thousands of dollars is possible works because there are people who can afford nothing, and others who can afford to spend thousands.
- posted by Tobold @ 8:05 AM Permanent Link
Comments:
<< Home
Newer› ‹Older
> In the end we need to debate in how far this is an evil ploy, or simply a reflection of the world of growing inequality in which we live in.
It may be a reflection of the real world but that doesn't mean we're supposed to accept and/or support it in a video game. If this business model exists, it's your fault too. Because you accept and support it. You even spend money to acquire ingame benefits, because $100 or $200 are nothing for you, compared to your total income.
Of course I am not pointing the finger against you, specifically, but you're one of the many players who spread the voice, blog about the game and (indirectly) support its business scheme. Just like you did with other P2W/lootboxes games in the past.
Exploiting players with loot boxes or similar predatory mechanics has been a harsh reality for years. And if we keep treating this behaviour like something "annoying" instead of "bad" then things will never change.
If I had a gaming blog I'd want a "I do not support it" badge for some games. You should be the first to condone this stuff.
It may be a reflection of the real world but that doesn't mean we're supposed to accept and/or support it in a video game. If this business model exists, it's your fault too. Because you accept and support it. You even spend money to acquire ingame benefits, because $100 or $200 are nothing for you, compared to your total income.
Of course I am not pointing the finger against you, specifically, but you're one of the many players who spread the voice, blog about the game and (indirectly) support its business scheme. Just like you did with other P2W/lootboxes games in the past.
Exploiting players with loot boxes or similar predatory mechanics has been a harsh reality for years. And if we keep treating this behaviour like something "annoying" instead of "bad" then things will never change.
If I had a gaming blog I'd want a "I do not support it" badge for some games. You should be the first to condone this stuff.
@Rugus: But that is exactly the question here: I would certainly put a "I do not support it" badge on a game that *forces* you to spend lots of money to just basically succeed. I am not certain in how far a game that *allows* you to spend lots of money, without that being strictly necessary, falls into the same ethical category. Where is the difference between that and a game that allows you to spend thousands of dollars on skins and cosmetic options?
Fortnite offers the entire "gameplay content" for free, right out of the box. No grind, no loot boxes, no gambling of any kind. You pay for cosmetics, which are the virtual version of Gucci or Louis Vuitton, but you can still be a champion while playing with the default "base" skin. You can be a champion on day one too, if you're very talented. There are no abilities or additional benefits to unlock, everyone plays on the same field.
My kids play it since 2017. They have some skins (gifts from friends, gifts for good grades, Christmas, etc) but our overall expense for the game is less than €200 in three years, which is less than €40/year per account).
If you spend $10 in Fortnite for a "Batman skin" you get a Batman skin. Just like in real life, you spend money to obtain something you want. In Genshin Impact you spend $10 for an ice cream and then you hope to get the flavor you like. If not, you keep spending money until that flavor comes out. Which may cost you a fortune.
The Kendrick Perkins' son would have spent that money in clothes, travels or expensive food. He didn't spend that money because Fortnite lured him, he spent it because he had (almost) endless money for trivial activities.
My kids play it since 2017. They have some skins (gifts from friends, gifts for good grades, Christmas, etc) but our overall expense for the game is less than €200 in three years, which is less than €40/year per account).
If you spend $10 in Fortnite for a "Batman skin" you get a Batman skin. Just like in real life, you spend money to obtain something you want. In Genshin Impact you spend $10 for an ice cream and then you hope to get the flavor you like. If not, you keep spending money until that flavor comes out. Which may cost you a fortune.
The Kendrick Perkins' son would have spent that money in clothes, travels or expensive food. He didn't spend that money because Fortnite lured him, he spent it because he had (almost) endless money for trivial activities.
I would argue that the 5-star characters people spend thousands of dollars for in Genshin Impact are not fundamentally different from "skins". You *do* get the entire gameplay content for free, right out of the non-existing box.
Point taken on the gambling aspect, as compared to being able to buy what you want.
Point taken on the gambling aspect, as compared to being able to buy what you want.
> the 5-star characters people spend thousands of dollars for in Genshin Impact are not fundamentally different from "skins"
What are they for? Are they just cosmetic textures that you apply over your character? What about the weapons, are there any "legendary" items that give you an advantage if you manage to win one (with real money)?
If not, then I agree. It's just a Fortnite variation with sexy dolls.
What are they for? Are they just cosmetic textures that you apply over your character? What about the weapons, are there any "legendary" items that give you an advantage if you manage to win one (with real money)?
If not, then I agree. It's just a Fortnite variation with sexy dolls.
Imagine you need an overall strength of 80 for your character to beat the game. A regular, free character has a strength of 100, so it's no trouble for you to beat the game for free. You can however buy a 5-star character with a strength of 110. Yes, technically that character is stronger and you pay money for more power. But on the other hand the power isn't needed for anything other than making you feel better when you defeat your opponents a bit faster and easier. For me that isn't all that far off from cosmetic.
What I object to is games in which the free character has a strength of 80, and you need 100 to beat the game, and you absolutely *need* to buy a character of strength 110 to even have a chance of beating the game. I know a lot of mobile games that work this way, but Genshin Impact isn't one of them.
What I object to is games in which the free character has a strength of 80, and you need 100 to beat the game, and you absolutely *need* to buy a character of strength 110 to even have a chance of beating the game. I know a lot of mobile games that work this way, but Genshin Impact isn't one of them.
My problem with lootboxes/caches/packs/whatever is their exploitative nature. It doesnt really matter if its power items or cosmetics because they still manipulate users in the same way.
I'm not against random chance being used to give out rewards in games but I firmly believe you should not be able to purchase lootboxes or even a way to increase your rate of earning lootboxes in games.
If a dev had lootboxes for rewards that could not be purchased with cash but the player could spend money on items or cosmetics directly that's fine by me. But once you attach money to what's essentially a slot machine you've stepped into gambling territory and thus should be regulated as such.
I'm not against random chance being used to give out rewards in games but I firmly believe you should not be able to purchase lootboxes or even a way to increase your rate of earning lootboxes in games.
If a dev had lootboxes for rewards that could not be purchased with cash but the player could spend money on items or cosmetics directly that's fine by me. But once you attach money to what's essentially a slot machine you've stepped into gambling territory and thus should be regulated as such.
Ok I'll give it a go. I have only played the game for about an hour so my knowledge of the deeper mechanics is very limited but from what I can see:
The game does not coerce anyone to spend money. It does not lie about what you get for your money and it does not appear to behave in any otherwise fraudulent manner. So what is the ethical problem?
I guess the argument is that games like this are intentionally or unintentionally designed to prey on the psychological traits of certain people (the vulnerable group) in such a way as to cause such vulnerable people to develop compulsive behaviour which results in them spending more than they can afford. This argument is strengthened by numerous reports that free to play games earn most of their revenue from a very small number of high paying players (whales).
Unfortunately it seems to be hard to find data on what percentage of whales are vulnerable people with a problem as opposed to rich players with money to burn. There are studies available on gaming addiction but they seem to look at gaming itself as an addictive behaviour and not just the financial aspects of free to play.
Free to play addiction certainly hasn't bubbled up to mainstream attention the way other compulsive addictions have such as alcohol, narcotics and gambling. If it is a problem it seems to be quite rare and fairly well hidden. Given the many millions who have regularly played f2p games over the last decade that suggests that the actual risks are quite small and only affect a very small number of players.
So the game developers could legitimately say that they are behaving ethically because the vast majority of their players do not experience any adverse affects. It may well be that the percentage of f2p gamers who experience problems from the activity are lower than the percentage of alcohol consumers or sports gamblers who are affected by their activities and many societies happily allow those industries an ethical free pass.
However, and this is a big however, there is a fundamental difference between the business model of a pub that sells alcohol and a game company that sells a f2p game. The pub makes plenty of money from non problem drinkers. They don't deliberately set out to encourage people to become alcoholics and in fact it can be a disadvantage for the pub when customers with a drinking problem frighten away other customers. F2p games on the other hand make very little money from non whales so they have a huge incentive to lure in vulnerable individuals and encourage them to develop a problem habit and it appears from numerous accounts that this is exactly what the monetisation strategy of many of these games is intended to do. For me this clinical targeting of potential problem players using known psychological techniques (such as random loot boxes) is the core ethical issue and it is fairly damning for the game developers. The fact that the vast majority of players enjoy the game with no adverse effect does not offset the fact that the developers specifically target a small number of vulnerable people to exploit. They cannot say those unfortunate people who develop a problem are just an unfortunate insignificant percentage because they are deliberately targeting that small percentage for most of their revenue.
My conclusion: This monetisation strategy is unethical by design.
The game does not coerce anyone to spend money. It does not lie about what you get for your money and it does not appear to behave in any otherwise fraudulent manner. So what is the ethical problem?
I guess the argument is that games like this are intentionally or unintentionally designed to prey on the psychological traits of certain people (the vulnerable group) in such a way as to cause such vulnerable people to develop compulsive behaviour which results in them spending more than they can afford. This argument is strengthened by numerous reports that free to play games earn most of their revenue from a very small number of high paying players (whales).
Unfortunately it seems to be hard to find data on what percentage of whales are vulnerable people with a problem as opposed to rich players with money to burn. There are studies available on gaming addiction but they seem to look at gaming itself as an addictive behaviour and not just the financial aspects of free to play.
Free to play addiction certainly hasn't bubbled up to mainstream attention the way other compulsive addictions have such as alcohol, narcotics and gambling. If it is a problem it seems to be quite rare and fairly well hidden. Given the many millions who have regularly played f2p games over the last decade that suggests that the actual risks are quite small and only affect a very small number of players.
So the game developers could legitimately say that they are behaving ethically because the vast majority of their players do not experience any adverse affects. It may well be that the percentage of f2p gamers who experience problems from the activity are lower than the percentage of alcohol consumers or sports gamblers who are affected by their activities and many societies happily allow those industries an ethical free pass.
However, and this is a big however, there is a fundamental difference between the business model of a pub that sells alcohol and a game company that sells a f2p game. The pub makes plenty of money from non problem drinkers. They don't deliberately set out to encourage people to become alcoholics and in fact it can be a disadvantage for the pub when customers with a drinking problem frighten away other customers. F2p games on the other hand make very little money from non whales so they have a huge incentive to lure in vulnerable individuals and encourage them to develop a problem habit and it appears from numerous accounts that this is exactly what the monetisation strategy of many of these games is intended to do. For me this clinical targeting of potential problem players using known psychological techniques (such as random loot boxes) is the core ethical issue and it is fairly damning for the game developers. The fact that the vast majority of players enjoy the game with no adverse effect does not offset the fact that the developers specifically target a small number of vulnerable people to exploit. They cannot say those unfortunate people who develop a problem are just an unfortunate insignificant percentage because they are deliberately targeting that small percentage for most of their revenue.
My conclusion: This monetisation strategy is unethical by design.
> You can however buy a 5-star character with a strength
> of 110. Yes, technically that character is stronger and
> you pay money for more power. But on the other hand the
> power isn't needed for anything other than making you
> feel better when you defeat your opponents a bit faster
> and easier. For me that isn't all that far off from
> cosmetic.
So you pay to kill stuff even faster in a game that is already easy by itself. It's not competitive, it's not P2P, there are no ladders, there is no "better reward" for faster fights and on top of that... Killing faster means finishing the game faster, which leads to "less gameplay time". And everything you do can't be seen/appreciated by anyone, because you're alone (it's not a MMO). There is no prestige of any kind.
I'm speechless.
> of 110. Yes, technically that character is stronger and
> you pay money for more power. But on the other hand the
> power isn't needed for anything other than making you
> feel better when you defeat your opponents a bit faster
> and easier. For me that isn't all that far off from
> cosmetic.
So you pay to kill stuff even faster in a game that is already easy by itself. It's not competitive, it's not P2P, there are no ladders, there is no "better reward" for faster fights and on top of that... Killing faster means finishing the game faster, which leads to "less gameplay time". And everything you do can't be seen/appreciated by anyone, because you're alone (it's not a MMO). There is no prestige of any kind.
I'm speechless.
"And everything you do can't be seen/appreciated by anyone, because you're alone (it's not a MMO). There is no prestige of any kind."
Not entirely. If the intention is to market the game to streaming whales who in turn hype their communities to play and pay.
Not entirely. If the intention is to market the game to streaming whales who in turn hype their communities to play and pay.
The dutch gambling authority has done an extensive analyses of lootboxes and the conclusion is the they should be banned by law and that some are even in conflict with the current gambling law. They have tried to ban them with some succes. I think Valve caved in and Dutch game developers have stepped away from loot boxes. The others, Fifa for example, are defending it tooth and nail. I think this tells you enough...
Post a Comment
<< Home
