strange headache
Banned
When it comes to micro-transactions and gambling mechanism in video games, some might argue that it's not a big deal because people have a choice to simply ignore them. What many of these people seem to forget is that many game publishers seek to push their audience into accepting these mechanisms. Nowadays micro-transactions have become a normality for most triple-A games with the few exceptions in between being lauded as especially virtuous. Not many years ago, these exceptions were considered standard within the gaming landscape. That's how far the current situation with micro-transactions, gacha mechanics, loot boxes and gambling has eroded.
Behavioral theory would dictate that certain behaviors are acquired through repeated interaction, i.e. conditioning. Given enough time and repetitions, these behaviors turn into habits or passive reflexes produced by a response to certain stimuli. Therefore, strict behaviorists believe that any person can potentially be trained to perform any task, it merely requires the right conditioning.
By inserting these unwelcomed mechanics into most of their catalog, game publishers are trying to make these things an accepted normality through the behavioral conditioning of habit. When in the past, these mechanisms would cause major outrage within the gaming community, nowadays even us older gamers have grown used to them. We've long stopped to complain and even if we don't like these mechanisms, we've certainly grown complacent to them. So complacent in fact that many of us have ultimately ended up accepting them.
When I stumbled upon a video with Jack Black talking about his son spending $3000 on in-game currency, the thought struck me that game publishers are not targeting the current audience, they are targeting the next generation of gamers.
A younger generation that grew up on these mechanism, that did not have much of a chance to witness an age of gaming where these practices were largely unknown. In a certain sense, game publishers are conditioning young gamers to use and accept these mechanisms through repeated exposure and habit.
Jim Sterling once did a video on the appalling practices that game publishers put into on of their video games, Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery, a game targeted at children.
Now hear me out, I'm not construing some overly sentimental "won't somebody think of the children" argument here. I just think that children growing up on these games, will not consider the dangers of micro-transactions and gacha mechanics as much as we do and the certainly won't be as critical towards them as most of us seasoned gamers. Just take a look at Sterling's video and tell me if these practices are befitting not only a video game publisher but also a producer of other children's entertainment and media.
Certainly, parents have a certain responsibility to bear, but can we truly expect them to turn into helicopter parents, watching their children's each and every move? I don't think so. Do you honestly think that a couple of serious talks between child and parent will stem the tide against hours upon hours of repeated interaction, behavioral practice and habit? Consider this, you would never let your child enter a casino and play roulette, but at the same time we let these practices enter our households via the games we play. We let publishers put these mechanisms into our games, slowly conditioning younger audiences into accepting them as normal. If culture can be somewhat simplistically summed up as "the ideas, customs, and social behaviour of a particular people", we cannot deny that these practices will change gaming culture as whole.
Micro-transactions and gacha mechanics also transform the way hoe we play these games. In order to make these transactions palatable to the common gamer, they need to be supported by the game's mechanics. In other words, gameplay dictates the attractiveness of these financial interactions. No matter if the game is "play to win" or not, developers and publishers will design their games around these considerations even influencing those who try their best to ignores these mechanisms. If you need to pay to make the grind more bearable, this means that the gameplay is deliberately designed to be boring otherwise nobody would pay for these services.
The parental responsibility notwithstanding, we cannot ignore the fact that game publishers bear a certain responsibility too. If parents wouldn't allow their children to visit a casino, so do have casinos the responsibility to not let minors enter their premises. Even worse, we now have game publishers actively fighting regulations that might impact their financial practices. EA is planning to go to court in order to fight the Belgian ban on loot boxes, for example. And 2K is politically mobilizing their audience begging their Belgium customers to fight for loot boxes.
When it comes to mobile gaming, I think the main reason why these games have such a bad reputation is because those games are riddled with these practices. Mobile is still a young media platform that has never known a place in time where micro-transactions, sh*tty gacha mechanisms and virtual currency weren't a thing. It's not the gamers who are responsible for their bad reputation, but the developers and publishers who normalized these things on mobile.
I'm a libertarian at heart, but I cannot deny the fact that certain regulations might be necessary to protect what we as gamers value about our hobby and our culture as a whole. Regulating these practices will not diminish our liberty as gamers, they will in fact protect them! I don't want publishers to target the next generation of gamers, having serious doubts if I even want to support a developer or publisher that is seriously trying to make these practices a necessary evil. I'm not calling for a boycott, but these thoughts will certainly make me reconsider whether I'll jump the gun on my next game or not.
Behavioral theory would dictate that certain behaviors are acquired through repeated interaction, i.e. conditioning. Given enough time and repetitions, these behaviors turn into habits or passive reflexes produced by a response to certain stimuli. Therefore, strict behaviorists believe that any person can potentially be trained to perform any task, it merely requires the right conditioning.
By inserting these unwelcomed mechanics into most of their catalog, game publishers are trying to make these things an accepted normality through the behavioral conditioning of habit. When in the past, these mechanisms would cause major outrage within the gaming community, nowadays even us older gamers have grown used to them. We've long stopped to complain and even if we don't like these mechanisms, we've certainly grown complacent to them. So complacent in fact that many of us have ultimately ended up accepting them.
When I stumbled upon a video with Jack Black talking about his son spending $3000 on in-game currency, the thought struck me that game publishers are not targeting the current audience, they are targeting the next generation of gamers.
A younger generation that grew up on these mechanism, that did not have much of a chance to witness an age of gaming where these practices were largely unknown. In a certain sense, game publishers are conditioning young gamers to use and accept these mechanisms through repeated exposure and habit.
Jim Sterling once did a video on the appalling practices that game publishers put into on of their video games, Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery, a game targeted at children.
Now hear me out, I'm not construing some overly sentimental "won't somebody think of the children" argument here. I just think that children growing up on these games, will not consider the dangers of micro-transactions and gacha mechanics as much as we do and the certainly won't be as critical towards them as most of us seasoned gamers. Just take a look at Sterling's video and tell me if these practices are befitting not only a video game publisher but also a producer of other children's entertainment and media.
Certainly, parents have a certain responsibility to bear, but can we truly expect them to turn into helicopter parents, watching their children's each and every move? I don't think so. Do you honestly think that a couple of serious talks between child and parent will stem the tide against hours upon hours of repeated interaction, behavioral practice and habit? Consider this, you would never let your child enter a casino and play roulette, but at the same time we let these practices enter our households via the games we play. We let publishers put these mechanisms into our games, slowly conditioning younger audiences into accepting them as normal. If culture can be somewhat simplistically summed up as "the ideas, customs, and social behaviour of a particular people", we cannot deny that these practices will change gaming culture as whole.
Micro-transactions and gacha mechanics also transform the way hoe we play these games. In order to make these transactions palatable to the common gamer, they need to be supported by the game's mechanics. In other words, gameplay dictates the attractiveness of these financial interactions. No matter if the game is "play to win" or not, developers and publishers will design their games around these considerations even influencing those who try their best to ignores these mechanisms. If you need to pay to make the grind more bearable, this means that the gameplay is deliberately designed to be boring otherwise nobody would pay for these services.
The parental responsibility notwithstanding, we cannot ignore the fact that game publishers bear a certain responsibility too. If parents wouldn't allow their children to visit a casino, so do have casinos the responsibility to not let minors enter their premises. Even worse, we now have game publishers actively fighting regulations that might impact their financial practices. EA is planning to go to court in order to fight the Belgian ban on loot boxes, for example. And 2K is politically mobilizing their audience begging their Belgium customers to fight for loot boxes.
When it comes to mobile gaming, I think the main reason why these games have such a bad reputation is because those games are riddled with these practices. Mobile is still a young media platform that has never known a place in time where micro-transactions, sh*tty gacha mechanisms and virtual currency weren't a thing. It's not the gamers who are responsible for their bad reputation, but the developers and publishers who normalized these things on mobile.
I'm a libertarian at heart, but I cannot deny the fact that certain regulations might be necessary to protect what we as gamers value about our hobby and our culture as a whole. Regulating these practices will not diminish our liberty as gamers, they will in fact protect them! I don't want publishers to target the next generation of gamers, having serious doubts if I even want to support a developer or publisher that is seriously trying to make these practices a necessary evil. I'm not calling for a boycott, but these thoughts will certainly make me reconsider whether I'll jump the gun on my next game or not.
Last edited: