This is bordering on soapbox teritory, so I wasn't sure where to post it. Jonathan Blow gave a lecture at Rice University back in 2010 about games and the human condition. One of the points he made was that games like Farmville, where things are on refresh timers are inherently disrespectful of the player's time, and developers are constantly playing a metagame of watching how small changes to the monetization structure change the amount of revenue brought in per unit time. The genre has gotten a little more sophisticated with games like Clash of Clans, Final Fantasy Record Keeper (which also contains a Skinner Box aspect), and Fallout Shelter, but remains fundamentally unchanged. My questions are what are the appeal of these games, and is it moral to design games with a monetization strategy that specifically scratch a pretty deep seated lizard brain itch (much like gambling), and can even be downright addictive (again, like gambling)?
Please help
I didn't find the right solution from the internet.
Hey. Tell me please, if you were given money in the hands of the game and said that if you are lucky in these games of chance, you will be able to pick them up and withdraw? That's the way it goes here, so you can play for free and for full information I would recommend you review to read.
kaisago replied
385 weeks ago