This is the only right answer. Every single aspect of this game is designed to be addictive in every possible way. The definition of “behavioral addiction” applies to this more than “addiction.”
To pretend you aren’t to any degree addicted to this game is just outright naive.
They even name drop Kabam. I’d rather be jaded than naive. You think a billion dollar industry isn’t trying to get you addicted? Just because you don’t get fired from your job or your significant other doesn’t leave you doesn’t mean you aren’t addicted to some degree. I don’t expect to change your mind because your lack of self-awareness prevents you from allowing yourself to be wrong. But I wouldn’t call what this article is reporting as jaded.
A 2 year-old article from Tech Insider Australia is reputable proof that the game is trying to get you addicted? Please. My "lack of self-awareness". Let's talk about that. I was in Active Addiction for 20 years of my life and am over 8 and a half years clean. The first few years of my Recovery were spent with a team of Medical Professionals and people with decades invested into the disease, along with people in various other programs that specialize in Addiction. It is a disease. Recognized as such under the Health Act, as well as various other publications. It is a disorder that occurs between the Frontal Lobe and Midbrain Cortex that affects the center responsible for making choices. The effect is the release of Dopamine is sometimes hundreds of times larger than normal needs, and as such, the object replaces importance in the brain for things like food and love. The three characteristics of the disease are: - increased tolerance - presence of cravings - inability to stop regardless of consequences
Those 3 characteristics TOGETHER signify Addiction. You cannot acquire it from a Video Game.
Let's talk about that. Video Games are habit-forming. We are creatures of habit. All Humans are. We also live in an Instant Gratification Society, and are always focused on the next best thing. Bigger, better, faster. With that you have the Digital Age. People are attached to their devices and grow bored easily. Things not uncommon to Gamers in general. People play Video Games out of habit. That does not make it an Addiction. Someone who is an Addict adheres to all 3 criteria I listed. Healthy people overdo it. They have the ability to stop with consequences. Sometimes greater consequences, nonetheless. Someone in Active Addiction has no choice. They can't stop because the part of the brain responsible for that is in dis-order. Many people play the game a lot. Many continue. It's habitual. It's also a long-term game. While in Recovery we don't judge consequences of people trying to get help, someone who is addicted would look more like someone in thousands of dollars worth of debt, lost their family because they couldn't stop, can't keep a job because they can't stop playing, literally can't stop. Not just someone who plays habitually. The vast majority would put the game down by that point. Your article doesn't have half the knowledge I do on the subject. I've lived through it, and I spend my time helping people save their own lives with the issue. I'm quite aware. If I had to stop playing, I would be disheartened because I love the game and I've made friends. I would certainly be fine.
They even name drop Kabam. I’d rather be jaded than naive. You think a billion dollar industry isn’t trying to get you addicted? Just because you don’t get fired from your job or your significant other doesn’t leave you doesn’t mean you aren’t addicted to some degree. I don’t expect to change your mind because your lack of self-awareness prevents you from allowing yourself to be wrong. But I wouldn’t call what this article is reporting as jaded.
I would call it wildly misleading. Did you actually read the article and its references? I did, when it first came out. I find it to be sketchy, click-baity, and not well supported.
Here's a quote from the article, which I'm sure you did read:
The goal of an FTP game is to get as many players as possible addicted, so that they keep buying in-game content.
That sentence actually links to a study, implying that this statement is backed up by academic research. The problem is that the study they link to, which is here http://jultika.oulu.fi/files/nbnfioulu-201602271254.pdf, nowhere supports that statement. Not only does that study not mention "addiction" anywhere, the study doesn't even examine the motivations of game companies at all. The study is actually a study of game players and their motivations for spending on games, and an analysis of the kinds of games offering different avenues for players to spend.
This is how the study describes the free to play business model:
The main business goal for the F2P games is to attract a great number players and then offer them incentives to purchase the in-game items. Further help is provided by the fact that getting in the game requires no investment other than to reserve the users internet bandwidth so that they can download and play the game. This is very helpful in attracting new prospective customers for the game as getting in the game is very easy and does not require any monetary investment.
And the specific advantage of the free to play model is stated to be that because it is free, it has a greater ability to attract new players, and thus keep the playerbase growing and healthy:
A subscription based game that does not attract enough players is unlikely to do so in the future where as a F2P game is more likely to gather more players. Eventually, if they are properly immersed by the gameplay they are also more likely to pay for the game (Nojima, 2007).
The issue is not that the study is necessarily correct, and it is also dated. The issue is the article was willing to quote a study that very obviously does not support its thesis just to look more solid, presuming that most people don't read references anyway. But this is a fundamental, and not the only fundamental, flaw with the article.
Come to your own conclusions. I get that this isn’t like a hardcore drug addiction, I’ve made that clear in my prior posts. I’m just saying on a scale of 0-100 (0 being not addicted and 100 being life ruining addiction) of behavioral addiction (not clinical, they are different terms) anyone playing this game daily and collecting all the login rewards are above 1 on this scale.
I see people twisting words and terms and trying to make this a binary “not addicted” vs “heroine addiction” and that’s not the way the mind or life works.
Not once did I mention heroin. I described the characteristics of Addiction, and the extremities that follow from being addicted to Video Games. The disease manifests itself in unmanageability. The degree of unmanageability varies, but through all that, there is an inability to stop despite consequences. Addiction isn't just people who blew too much money on Crystals, or complained about issues but never put the game down. There's much, much more to it than that. Playing the game daily is not automatically Addiction. Not being able to stop despite consequences is a good earmark.
I’m just saying on a scale of 0-100 (0 being not addicted and 100 being life ruining addiction) of behavioral addiction (not clinical, they are different terms) anyone playing this game daily and collecting all the login rewards are above 1 on this scale.
On that massively expansive scale, I'm above a 1 for sunsets, dogs, and french fries.
I've seen Video Game Addiction. It's not pretty. I have a friend who suffers from it. He had to get rid of any and every console and device he could play on. He would spend days and days, isolated in his apartment. Skipped appointments and meetings, got angry, secretive, and defensive when you called him on it. He would sell his TV, console, computer, try to quit. Then would go back and buy new ones. Finally, he had to get help. He's doing well now. Is the game designed to be fun and enticing? Sure. Any product you sell is. Do they want long-term customers? Most businesses do. The game is centered around progress over time. That means coming back to it. However, that's a huge step from being designed to encourage Addiction. If anything, they encourage safe and responsible game play and want people to seek help if they need it. That much is up to the User. The game is not responsible for any personal issues people are bringing with them.
My conclusion is you don't do a lot of research on your own. If you think the words "hook" and "habit" are throwaway words, you haven't heard of Nir Eyal. And I'm pretty sure you haven't, or you would have much more compelling arguments available to you.
Nir Eyal makes the case that all good companies that play in the so-called attention economy have to grab the attention of their customers, and they do that by creating "hooks" that link what he calls "triggers" that people associate with the company's products. These hooks are then rewarded in some fashion using variable scheduled rewards to create activity-based feedback loops, which he calls "habits."
The problem here is that if you were aware of this you would have led with that, because the video you link to is, once again, horribly unconvincing. Although the presenter mentions the hook, habit, hobby framework, his presentation isn't actually about that framework, which you would know if you actually watched it completely. His video is about monetization conversion, not retention. In other words, all of his presentation is focused on designing your game so that players are more likely to spend in the game than not spend, not about how to try to addict players to the game itself. I think he stuck that in his presentation just because it was in vogue at the time: his presentation is a little scattered in general and his stuff goes all over the place.
That's twice in a row you've linked to material that superficially supports your addiction claims, but in actual fact doesn't help your cause at all. The first one falls apart completely, the second one doesn't even talk about addiction.
I'm not entirely unsympathetic: the issue of monetization and psychological manipulation is actually something I've been actively researching and debating for maybe twelve years now - since the very beginning of the microtransaction era in fact. So I'll point you in the right direction. Try starting here: How to use the hooked model to turn your product into a habit. Or if you want to go directly to the source: Hooked: How to Build Habit-Forming Products. That's what the presenter was referencing, but didn't actually talk about.
This isn't about games per se, but the games industry is adopting a lot of the ideas in its engagement and monetization strategies. I should point out that Eyal didn't invent any of this per se: he was one of the first to systematically discuss what was being organically invented in many different places simultaneously. And he isn't without his critics, but the point is not that he's right or he's wrong, it is that the line of thinking he promotes has significant sway in the games as a service industry (which MCOC fundamentally is). If you want to argue against psychological manipulation in online games, that would be a good place to start.
My conclusion is you don't do a lot of research on your own. If you think the words "hook" and "habit" are throwaway words, you haven't heard of Nir Eyal. And I'm pretty sure you haven't, or you would have much more compelling arguments available to you.
Nir Eyal makes the case that all good companies that play in the so-called attention economy have to grab the attention of their customers, and they do that by creating "hooks" that link what he calls "triggers" that people associate with the company's products. These hooks are then rewarded in some fashion using variable scheduled rewards to create activity-based feedback loops, which he calls "habits."
The problem here is that if you were aware of this you would have led with that, because the video you link to is, once again, horribly unconvincing. Although the presenter mentions the hook, habit, hobby framework, his presentation isn't actually about that framework, which you would know if you actually watched it completely. His video is about monetization conversion, not retention. In other words, all of his presentation is focused on designing your game so that players are more likely to spend in the game than not spend, not about how to try to addict players to the game itself. I think he stuck that in his presentation just because it was in vogue at the time: his presentation is a little scattered in general and his stuff goes all over the place.
That's twice in a row you've linked to material that superficially supports your addiction claims, but in actual fact doesn't help your cause at all. The first one falls apart completely, the second one doesn't even talk about addiction.
I'm not entirely unsympathetic: the issue of monetization and psychological manipulation is actually something I've been actively researching and debating for maybe twelve years now - since the very beginning of the microtransaction era in fact. So I'll point you in the right direction. Try starting here: How to use the hooked model to turn your product into a habit. Or if you want to go directly to the source: Hooked: How to Build Habit-Forming Products. That's what the presenter was referencing, but didn't actually talk about.
This isn't about games per se, but the games industry is adopting a lot of the ideas in its engagement and monetization strategies. I should point out that Eyal didn't invent any of this per se: he was one of the first to systematically discuss what was being organically invented in many different places simultaneously. And he isn't without his critics, but the point is not that he's right or he's wrong, it is that the line of thinking he promotes has significant sway in the games as a service industry (which MCOC fundamentally is). If you want to argue against psychological manipulation in online games, that would be a good place to start.
That’s a lot of words you are using to say I’m wrong, yet you seem agree with me, despite not making a clear, consise point. Never said hook and habit were throwaway words, I said they were key words, literally the exact opposite if we are speaking the same language. The same words to big tobacco and others use to describe cigarette smokers, addicts. I’m not going to split hairs and argue semantics and everyone’s own “definition” of terms. But if you think these games aren’t designed to impact you the same way drugs do, with malice aforethought, then you don’t understand what billion dollar industries are up to.
Comments
To pretend you aren’t to any degree addicted to this game is just outright naive.
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/how-video-game-companies-are-using-gambling-tactics-to-make-customers-addicted-2017-9
They even name drop Kabam. I’d rather be jaded than naive. You think a billion dollar industry isn’t trying to get you addicted? Just because you don’t get fired from your job or your significant other doesn’t leave you doesn’t mean you aren’t addicted to some degree. I don’t expect to change your mind because your lack of self-awareness prevents you from allowing yourself to be wrong. But I wouldn’t call what this article is reporting as jaded.
My "lack of self-awareness". Let's talk about that. I was in Active Addiction for 20 years of my life and am over 8 and a half years clean. The first few years of my Recovery were spent with a team of Medical Professionals and people with decades invested into the disease, along with people in various other programs that specialize in Addiction. It is a disease. Recognized as such under the Health Act, as well as various other publications. It is a disorder that occurs between the Frontal Lobe and Midbrain Cortex that affects the center responsible for making choices. The effect is the release of Dopamine is sometimes hundreds of times larger than normal needs, and as such, the object replaces importance in the brain for things like food and love.
The three characteristics of the disease are:
- increased tolerance
- presence of cravings
- inability to stop regardless of consequences
Those 3 characteristics TOGETHER signify Addiction. You cannot acquire it from a Video Game.
Let's talk about that. Video Games are habit-forming. We are creatures of habit. All Humans are. We also live in an Instant Gratification Society, and are always focused on the next best thing. Bigger, better, faster. With that you have the Digital Age. People are attached to their devices and grow bored easily. Things not uncommon to Gamers in general.
People play Video Games out of habit. That does not make it an Addiction. Someone who is an Addict adheres to all 3 criteria I listed. Healthy people overdo it. They have the ability to stop with consequences. Sometimes greater consequences, nonetheless. Someone in Active Addiction has no choice. They can't stop because the part of the brain responsible for that is in dis-order.
Many people play the game a lot. Many continue. It's habitual. It's also a long-term game. While in Recovery we don't judge consequences of people trying to get help, someone who is addicted would look more like someone in thousands of dollars worth of debt, lost their family because they couldn't stop, can't keep a job because they can't stop playing, literally can't stop. Not just someone who plays habitually. The vast majority would put the game down by that point.
Your article doesn't have half the knowledge I do on the subject. I've lived through it, and I spend my time helping people save their own lives with the issue. I'm quite aware. If I had to stop playing, I would be disheartened because I love the game and I've made friends. I would certainly be fine.
No wait, that's not right
Here's a quote from the article, which I'm sure you did read: That sentence actually links to a study, implying that this statement is backed up by academic research. The problem is that the study they link to, which is here http://jultika.oulu.fi/files/nbnfioulu-201602271254.pdf, nowhere supports that statement. Not only does that study not mention "addiction" anywhere, the study doesn't even examine the motivations of game companies at all. The study is actually a study of game players and their motivations for spending on games, and an analysis of the kinds of games offering different avenues for players to spend.
This is how the study describes the free to play business model: And the specific advantage of the free to play model is stated to be that because it is free, it has a greater ability to attract new players, and thus keep the playerbase growing and healthy: The issue is not that the study is necessarily correct, and it is also dated. The issue is the article was willing to quote a study that very obviously does not support its thesis just to look more solid, presuming that most people don't read references anyway. But this is a fundamental, and not the only fundamental, flaw with the article.
Key words “trick” “hook” “habit”
Come to your own conclusions. I get that this isn’t like a hardcore drug addiction, I’ve made that clear in my prior posts. I’m just saying on a scale of 0-100 (0 being not addicted and 100 being life ruining addiction) of behavioral addiction (not clinical, they are different terms) anyone playing this game daily and collecting all the login rewards are above 1 on this scale.
I see people twisting words and terms and trying to make this a binary “not addicted” vs “heroine addiction” and that’s not the way the mind or life works.
Playing the game daily is not automatically Addiction. Not being able to stop despite consequences is a good earmark.
Is the game designed to be fun and enticing? Sure. Any product you sell is. Do they want long-term customers? Most businesses do. The game is centered around progress over time. That means coming back to it. However, that's a huge step from being designed to encourage Addiction. If anything, they encourage safe and responsible game play and want people to seek help if they need it. That much is up to the User. The game is not responsible for any personal issues people are bringing with them.
Nir Eyal makes the case that all good companies that play in the so-called attention economy have to grab the attention of their customers, and they do that by creating "hooks" that link what he calls "triggers" that people associate with the company's products. These hooks are then rewarded in some fashion using variable scheduled rewards to create activity-based feedback loops, which he calls "habits."
The problem here is that if you were aware of this you would have led with that, because the video you link to is, once again, horribly unconvincing. Although the presenter mentions the hook, habit, hobby framework, his presentation isn't actually about that framework, which you would know if you actually watched it completely. His video is about monetization conversion, not retention. In other words, all of his presentation is focused on designing your game so that players are more likely to spend in the game than not spend, not about how to try to addict players to the game itself. I think he stuck that in his presentation just because it was in vogue at the time: his presentation is a little scattered in general and his stuff goes all over the place.
That's twice in a row you've linked to material that superficially supports your addiction claims, but in actual fact doesn't help your cause at all. The first one falls apart completely, the second one doesn't even talk about addiction.
I'm not entirely unsympathetic: the issue of monetization and psychological manipulation is actually something I've been actively researching and debating for maybe twelve years now - since the very beginning of the microtransaction era in fact. So I'll point you in the right direction. Try starting here: How to use the hooked model to turn your product into a habit. Or if you want to go directly to the source: Hooked: How to Build Habit-Forming Products. That's what the presenter was referencing, but didn't actually talk about.
This isn't about games per se, but the games industry is adopting a lot of the ideas in its engagement and monetization strategies. I should point out that Eyal didn't invent any of this per se: he was one of the first to systematically discuss what was being organically invented in many different places simultaneously. And he isn't without his critics, but the point is not that he's right or he's wrong, it is that the line of thinking he promotes has significant sway in the games as a service industry (which MCOC fundamentally is). If you want to argue against psychological manipulation in online games, that would be a good place to start.