The Ethics of Social Games

Gamespot is running a story about the ethics and morality of the social games market, which in recent years has exploded to involve hundreds of millions of players. Between micro-transactions, getting players to recruit friends, and the thin line between compelling games and addictive games, there are plenty of opportunities for developers to stray into shady practices. Quoting: "The most successful social games to date have used very simple gameplay mechanics, encouraging neither strategy nor dexterity but regular interaction with the game ... Although undeniably successful, the existing social game framework has been the subject of much debate among game developers from every corner of the game industry, from the mainstream to the indie community. Some, like Super Meat Boy creator Edmund McMillen, are particularly strident in their assessment. 'Social games tend to have a really seedy and abusive means of manipulation that they use to rope people in and keep them in,' McMillen said. 'People are so tricked into that that they'll actually spend real money on something that does absolutely nothing, nothing at all.'

Comments

I disagree w/McMillen a bit

[Huntr]

He said

'People are so tricked into that that they'll actually spend real money on something that does absolutely nothing, nothing at all.'

The same could be said of so much of what we do, particularly entertainment-related spending. Whether or not something is "worthwhile" is a very personal decision. People spend millions on non-social gaming and what do they get from it? The entertainment experience, same as with social games, same as with gambling, same as with watching sports or movies or observing art. You don't end up with anything tangible, but the experience is worth every penny to you. Some endeavors are more accepted as worthwhile by society or have generally agreed upon benefits, but the perception of value still varies from person to person. JMO.

Hypocritical?

[rekrowyalp]

'People are so tricked into that that they'll actually spend real money on something that does absolutely nothing, nothing at all.' Well duh, surely buying 'normal' non-social games falls under that category too...

I agree w/McMillen a bit

[Purity Of Essence]

Edmund McMillen is right on the money. This topic (along with the GameSpot article) fails for not mentioning an insightful and informative talk Braid creator Jonathan Blow gave at Rice University a couple of months ago. Unlike other diversions, these "social" games are not at all about providing fun or entertainment. They are entirely about separating you from your money using sophisticated psychological tricks. You might be right in saying there is a perception of value, but these systems create that perception in a very devious manner. If you were to take away the tricks, you would find there is no game -- or rather, the only game is the system creators gaming the players for all the money they can get. People don't play these games because they are fun or challenging. They play them as a conditioned response to a variable ratio reinforcement schedule, in the same way a caged rat hits a trigger for a pellet.

Watch or listen to Jonathan Blow's talk:
Games and the Human Condition

Social Games (aka Skinner Boxes):
Operant Conditioning Chamber
Reinforcement

Re:I agree w/McMillen a bit

[Huntr]

They are entirely about separating you from your money using sophisticated psychological tricks.

The only difference between social games and any other form of entertainment is sometimes the tricks aren't all that sophisticated. Entertainment is all about separating the consumer from his money. I don't think the MPAA is a "better" content provider than Zynga simply because they use movie posters and TV spots.

real money on nothing of value= consumerism

[fantomas]

"People are so tricked into that that they'll actually spend real money on something that does absolutely nothing, nothing at all"

Sounds like a general damnation on a lot of modern consumer society to me. Social media games - do nothing for you. Game console - doesn't improve your life. Clothes with logo that's considered desirable, no more efficient at keeping you warm or dry - made in the same factory in Cambodia / Vietnam as the value-label clothes probably, both made by people in terrible working conditions for a dollar a day. Special paint job on your auto - does absolutely nothing. Buying new matching table crockery or wine glasses instead of picking up second hand ones / using the ones your parents gave you from their old set - no more functionality.

Functionally, you're probably better off investing your money, buying property, buying further skills training, putting into a pension plan. But folk love spending "real money on something that does absolutely nothing".

Re:real money on nothing of value= consumerism

[DeadboltX]

So playing chess, which is just memorization of moves and move possibilities in advance, and the ability to change strategy on the fly, is bettering yourself; but playing a video game, which is just memorization of moves and move possibilities in advance, and the ability to change strategy on the fly, is not?

Re:Personal experiences with the social side of MM

[dave562]

The danger about developing social relations inside a video game with a monthly payment plan is that the social circle might become the reason you keep on paying a gaming company.

Re-write this...

The danger about developing social relations at a coffee house with a per cup payment plan is that the social circle might become the reason you keep on paying a coffee house.

Feel free to replace coffee house with any "acceptable" (non-Internet) based "social circle" and see if it really matters anymore.

Re:Personal experiences with the social side of MM

[Bigbutt]

Yea, but at least you're getting coffee :)

[John]