My problem with it was that they tried to have it both ways by treating the company president at the end as a positive model of action, rather than an equally culpable figure. If its wrong for an individual to waste time on such hollow pursuits, how much worse is it to be the one taking advantage of people who are biologically susceptible to such manipulative means (like skinner boxes)? That seems to me to be a rather odd view of society where we can hold contradictory views that both praise the operators of immoral business practices like payday loans for their individual success, while acknowledging that the actual business exploits the poor and uneducated and ensnares them in an inescapable cycle of debt. But that fact instead is used instead to indict the poor for "falling for it" instead of the placing the blame with the people who are really at fault, the creators. If games like this are wrong, people shouldn't make games like this.
To be clear, I'm not saying you can't do a one off game like this to try to send a message, merely that their treatment of the inferno company president wrongfully absolved her of guilt. In non-metaphorical terms, they're trying to say developers aren't blameworthy for making exploitative games like this, just the users, and that I cannot agree with.
