Compassion in F2P

[Tek7]

I had bookmarked this article by Ramin Shokrizade (a community contributor on Gamasutra) a few weeks ago and finally got around to reading it yesterday. I recommend everyone take 5-7 minutes of your day and read the article as well. I strongly recommend game developers or those interested in making games take the time to read the article as well.

And, of course, feel free to discuss after you've read the article.

 

[The Mighty Gerbil]

To dismiss those that are not as good at handling some situations as I am as weak...

Let's look at some of the definitions of weak http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/weak
...deficient in physical vigor
...not firmly decided : vacillating
...resulting from or indicating lack of judgment or discernment
...not able to withstand temptation or persuasion

Politically correct much? Denying a weakness does not make it disappear. In fact the opposite is necessary if one is ever to overcome a weakness it must first be acknowledged to exist. Even if you can't overcome a weakness you can at least avoid the temptation, but only if you know it's there! Neither does the term differ for biological or mental weakness. Everyone has a weakness, it's a negative, but finding a biological cause does nothing to change the term. Being weak at some time is a fact of life get over it. Thank God we are or we'd never acknowledge we need God.

Let me rephrase. They've done research that indicates a psychopath's brain functions physically different than normal people. Are we going to have tests that prematurely incarcerate people even if they haven't committed crimes? If we are nothing more than physical, if we have no soul, no free will we get into a very dangerous place. A place where people deny all personal responsibility and are judged, by others and themselves, before they have a chance. Don't get me wrong I don't dismiss the physical world as a factor effecting us. If medication helps your problem that's fine, but we aren't rats, and to remove all responsibility from people is idiotic. This is why everyone is becoming drug dependent. Medicine is there to help not be a tranquilizer every time your child acts up. The lack of personal responsibly is the direct cause of so many problems in our time.

When we lack compassion it is easy to laugh at those we see as mentally weaker or less disciplined than us. We know we are not supposed to laugh at physically disabled people, but often have no reservations about laughing at those we perceive as less intelligent.

I don't laugh at people I perceive as less intelligent. I am compassionate, but that means not letting people cop out with an excuse. I try to help the weak be their best saying (if it's a man) "I'm not letting you give up. If I have to kick your butt over the finish line, dead last or dead, you are going to finish this race". Our job is not being perfect, only Christ can do that for us, it's about us becoming perfect. It doesn't matter if you have a disability or none and come in last place or first. We can always do better.

In spite of some of the angles of the story irking me, I have long agreed with the overall point against exploiting the weak and innocent. As the weak bear personal responsibility those who exploit them do to. We don't need gambling in life or in games if it's going to be a drug to people. Neither the drug addict or pusher are absolved from their responsibilities. We too bear responsibly if we support such games. If what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall 1 Corinthians 8:13. Sigh, everyone wants to pass the buck to someone else not realizing everyone has responsibilities. I've heard it so many different ways.

I firmly believe a good game can stand on it's own drawing players in and keeping them playing by merit of game play, not gambling. The problem is greedy people will go "if I made this much money with game play think how many I can get with game play AND gambling!" :/ .

 

[Bowser]

I felt like this guy was an elitist and fairly delusional.

One, a parent, felt that because she had very strict control over her children, due to her excellent parenting skills, that others should be just as good at parenting as she is. The other, a very promising scientist, eloquently argued that consumers should be responsible for their actions, especially if the knowledge they need for decision making is available, even if it is not explicitly presented

This was suspicion for sarcasm (it sounds highly smug).

Not necessarily lack of compassion as a characteristic, but the kind of lack of compassion I often see in Quants and highly intelligent people that is born of a lack of knowledge of how the human body and brain works.

Basically, he's saying that no one could possibly be on the same page as him, unless they shared his background. And, of course, even though very few people share this background, and because of his specialized training and education, he is (he assumes) rightfully authoritative.

All rats died during this test, and I no longer do animal research and am a strict ethical vegan.

Oh ok, he's a good guy. I'm glad he wrote that because I wouldn't know how to shape my opinion of him had I not read it. But clearly he can be trusted, because he is a compassionate individual. My weak brain senses are tingling.

To dismiss those that are not as good at handling some situations as I am as weak is showing a lack of understanding and Compassion.

The argument is fairly one-sided at this point. I'm strong and intelligent, but because I don't look down on others who are weak and slow I am also compassionate.

When we lack compassion it is easy to laugh at those we see as mentally weaker or less disciplined than us. We know we are not supposed to laugh at physically disabled people, but often have no reservations about laughing at those we perceive as less intelligent. These people may be disabled too, it is just less obvious.

I have quite a few qualms with these sentences. The first is that he's intentionally misguiding the readers by assuming that anyone is intentionally taking advantage of these 'weak' people by incorporating these mechanics in games, or at the least a good portion of companies are (and if they are I apologize; I am not aware of it). He goes so far to say that they are being laughed at, and seems to imply, at least that's my impression, that we are the ones laughing at them, when that's not the case at all. The last issue I have is that he seemed to argue, at least in this article, that anyone with a 'different' biological state is the one who is 'weak', but he doesn't acknowledge that they're just simply... different.

Reading through his first article, I understand the point he's trying to make and the concerns that he has for younger gamers. He definitely has a valid concern in this regard, but I don't at all think he made his arguments very well, and IMO doesn't offer a proposed solution, other than simply saying 'don't laugh at people, yo, because I'm a scientist and I did experiments (but I don't do those harsh, harsh experiments anymore so I'm a good guy [shame, shame on you scientists]), and we all just need to have compassion for our weaker brethren, who are not as strong or as smart as we are (but I'm being politically correct and I hope you'll like me because 1. I'm compassionate (I said so, remember?) 2. I use all these descriptions of these inferior and less-developed persons in quotations, so that shows you that although I truly believe that they are truly inferior, I can be considered compassionate while doing so and 3. I don't remember what I was talking about or what point I'm making here, but I just wanted to remind you that I'm a scientist, so trust me.'

My .02 and his underlying argument:

Distressed monetization is definitely unethical, but by his own argument is seemingly rare, and targets an even rarer audience. I'm confused as to why he spent so much time writing an article, half of which was about himself, when he could have offered a far more poignant and direct argument.

Children, especially, should be protected from having or even being able to purchase items in-game. But the mechanics of which are an entirely different and much lengthier article, and poses many arguments in itself.

Honestly, I think this goes back to the parents. Unfortunately, and parents know this, exposing your children to certain things has certain risks associated with it. Letting your children play in the street has some very real consequences. Letting your children play online unsupervised, well... distressed monetization is the least concerning.

 

[The Mighty Gerbil]

I think it's genius he successfully proves children are immature and unable to cope with adult responsibilities. Science proving things you already know and then acting like it found something amazing.

I also don't think avoiding killing rats is compassionate if it means people are going to suffer from it. Compassionate people do hard things out of love.

It's sad a serious issue is overshadowed by such writing.

 

[Tek7]

Speaking for myself, I appreciate that an active member of the video games industry is calling for developers and publishers to adopt fair monetization models that do not exploit weak-willed players.

I have not been shy about calling out Candy Crush Saga and other free-to-play games, even Team Fortress 2 (specifically, its "buy a key, unlock a crate for a slight chance at getting an unusual hat" option), as exploitative in their designs.

I don't know where Ramin stands in regards to faith and world view, but I would think a call to compassion, even if flawed, would elicit a positive response in a community where we are called to place others before ourselves (the polar opposite of exploitation, such as that found in many "pay-to-win" games or games that profit from a small percentage of addicted and weak-willed players).

I concede there are valid counterarguments to Ramin's article, but I don't think the article warranted such harsh responses. I understand that my past readiness to lambast companies like SEGA, Capcom, EA, Activision--well, you get the idea--doesn't lend much authority to my opinion in this matter, but I'd hope that future replies would be more measured, even if strongly opposed to the points posed in the article linked in my original post.

Civil debate is strongly encouraged!

 

[Bowser]

My beef is that he's not talking about compassion, but is providing a false argument. He seems to be an ego-centric individual, which not only clearly comes off in both of the articles, but also in his responses to the comments about his article. He even had a few people call him out on it. His ego comes off very well considering that he wrote an entire article based on the response of TWO people who disagreed with him. He not only sees in black and white, but it's made worse that he thinks he's the one who's right, without argument.

For example, in the first article he dutifully ignored questions about the ethics of micro-transactions and other monetary methods that games use. Further, he seems to treat others, as evidenced in his article and in his replies to comments, as beneath him.

Lastly, he doesn't provide any kind of solution, whatsoever. Yes, I'm sure it's a problem. But, I'm comfortable with the problem being ignored. Why? Any young adult or even child is going to purchase whatever he or she can whenever he or she can. When I entered my early 20's, I spent an awful lot of money on games, computers, and random relatively trivial things. It was my choice, and at times my decisions were a bit foolish. I was an impulse buyer. But coddling or imposing restrictions on gamers for a perfectly natural "instinct" is also foolish. And to pretend that he's 'above' such influences is absurd.

There definitely is an argument here, and one I can strongly empathize with, but it doesn't revolve around item shops and pay-to-win mechanics. It has to do with the culture that gamers are immersed in, and comments therein, such as 'go kill yourself', which seems to be a popular statement. That is something I can absolutely be passionate about. But wasting all this energy on practically a non-issue and calling it compassionate, all the while talking about how 'right' the author is, and how 'wrong' the commentators are, is highly delusional.

In the second article, a user - Nils Pihl - http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/NilsPihl/925115/ - posted this response (which I largely agree with):

You are confusing compassion with paternalism.

First of all, starting somewhere completely different, you are blatantly misusing the term "altered state of consciousness", and by the frequency of sentences in your posts containing the word "I", I will assume that you are knowingly misusing the term to make yourself sound more credible and scientific. This is a recurring theme, as has previously been noted by commenters much smarter than me.

Second, I am amused to see that you FINALLY found a way to squeeze in the specifics of your otherwise irrelevant neuroendocrinology research to a Gamasutra ARTICLE, and that you have stopped calling your articles "papers".

An unusually large percentage of all sentences written by you on Gamasutra, in articles or comments, contain the word "I", or is in some other way self-promoting. I have learned more about you as a person than I have learned from you.

But now to the crux of the issue, the much more annoying misappropriation of the word "compassion":

After your rather lengthy throat-clearing (yes, I notice the irony) you give an example of people having different experiences at the DMV. You state, in a self-contradictory and/or linguistically sloppy manner, that people experience "the same stress as everyone else" at the DMV, yet have noticeably different reactions.

You are basically saying: Some people will be more stressed than others when experiencing the same amount of stress.

That makes no sense, but nitpicking aside, it cuts to a very important point: Not everyone EXPERIENCES the world the same way, and what is enjoyable or miserable for you is not the same as what is enjoyable or miserable to someone else.

I am in total agreement with you on that one point, but here's where you lose me, and anyone else that gives it a moment's thought: Your view of "compassion" rests on some VERY shaky ethical premisses.

If someone finds waiting in Clash of Clans unbearable, they are having a negative experience. For brevity's sake, let's just call possible negative experience tied to this wait as "discomfort", since we got here by discussing stress rather than impatience and delayed gratification.

The discomfort is very real to the player, and the player will reasonably want the discomfort to end. Her options at this point are to quit the game, wait or monetize. Three (3) choices. Within the player's attention scope at the time, the decision to monetize seems like an acceptable path to ending the discomfort. Giving them an option OTHER THAN QUITTING THE GAME is not compassionless, and designing a game that requires patience as a measurement of mastery is not cruel.

For 1-2% of players, your words, these kinds of waits are discomforting. Letting these players pay to remove the wait is no more immoral than it was to sell TiVo machines so that people could skip commercials.

If we correctly admit that not all men and women are created equal, biologically, then it does not follow that catering to immediate needs of the 1-2% is immoral. It is poor philosophy, poor ethics, and frankly a poor argument - and it was hard to separate it from all the blatant self-promotion.

Katy - http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/KatySmith/857812/ - also responds:

Ramin, while I appreciate your passion for the topic of Free to Play games, I have to say this article is overly simplified and borderline insulting. First, you seem to be conflating childhood development and personal responsibility in one article. It is easier to address these problems if the two are separated.

You seem to be implying that F2P developers are preying on children. While there have been examples of children buying copious amounts of Smurfberries, these are the exceptions, not the rule. To imply that the companies making these games are specifically seeking out children in order to exploit them for their copious disposable incomes is ridiculous. If these companies were specifically targeting children for exploitation, they would be in violation of COPPA (Children's Online Privacy Protection Act). I'm sure that the first time a game company was found in violation of COPPA, it would be all over Gamasutra, but this hasn't happened yet because F2P developers aren't doing anything that violates rules specifically set up to protect children in an online environment.

Looking at the OFT principles as proposed by the UK government, most of the F2P games (I've played) are either in compliance already, or need a few text changes to get there. You frequently bring up Candy Crush Saga as a game that is going to be heavily impacted by these new OFT rules. Comparing them with what is in the game now, there are exactly two areas in which they are not in compliance. The first can be fixed by changing the text on the game over pop up by adding the line "or wait to continue for free". The other is "principle 8" which requires changes from the platform holder (Apple, Facebook, Google Play). Even the OFT committee states that Principle 8 will probably not be enforceable against the game developer. If these principles, which are specifically designed to protect children, only require minor changes by a developer, I find it extremely hard to believe there is some nefarious child-preying going on in the F2P development world.

I've seen this number thrown around quite a bit about brain development not being complete until 25. This number is taken way out of context when it comes to F2P games. Child development theory states that children reach the ability to use formal (logical) reasoning somewhere around the age of 12-14. Even if you add 5 years for developmental differences, this means most people are capable of rational thought by the age of 17-19. It is not a coincidence that the age of majority in most countries is around this same age. This type of reasoning should be sufficient to be able to look at a pop up that says "buy more gold?" and say no. But what does that 25 years to get the brain fully developed actually mean? It's talking about post-formal thought. This is the type of thought that allows adults to sympathize with others who hold abstract beliefs that are different than theirs. In fact, some psychologists believe that a good number of people are incapable of developing extremely abstract thought. However, this is not viewed as a disorder or disability because that level of complex abstract thinking is not required to live a fully functioning, complete adult life. Hardly something needed when declining a purchase in Candy Crush Saga. If you look at where F2P game choices fall on the model of hierarchical complexity, this example scores on the low end of both the horizontal and vertical axes. In fact, it's not even abstract. These pop ups are literally asking a direct question (buy stuff?) with a dichotomous result (yes / no). So while it may be true that the brain does not fully develop in some people up to the age of 25, that number is completely irrelevant to the F2P discussion.

So let's look at adults and F2P games. Is it unethical for F2P developers to ask players for money? The argument you are trying to make is yes, because there could be people out there with physical disabilities that could be vulnerable to lowered impulse control. While this might be true, it's also true in every area of life. Are we to start regulating frozen food makers because they have pretty cool packaging and delicious chicken nuggets? Should we stop distributing coupons because people could see the savings as irresistible and blow all of their money on Healthy Choice pudding? No, this is absurd. There is a level of personal responsibility that you have to assume adults have. Otherwise, our personal freedoms would be so restricted, we couldn't do anything. There is a theory in psychology that states this hand-wringing over the safety and responsibility of others is actually damaging to people with diagnosed psychological and developmental disabilities. People need to feel like they have control over their lives. Regulating what they can or cannot spend their money on is not the way to do that.

I get that free to play is an easy target. Five years ago, games like Farmville and Mafia Wars challenged what "Games" meant. A lot of game developers were insulted that glorified spreadsheets and cartoon dollhouses were being called games. There's a lot of truthiness in what you are saying. It feels good, and it makes "real games" seem more legit. However, I haven't seen any suggestions on how to improve the situation from you. You call out a lack of compassion, and yet offer no suggestions. You say "think of the children!" but have not produced any examples of how you could do it better. Even worse, while disparaging developers who make games for kids, you have not given any recent examples of exactly how they are doing this. I've tried finding your papers, and while I have found copious blogs, I haven't found any academic works with your suggestions. Recently, you have said that you are working on World of Tanks. I can only assume this game is the result of your proprietary work on developing a new F2P system. Let's examine World of Tanks: It has premium currency. It has paywalls to exclusive content. It has premium items that give advantages to players who spend money. It has feedback loops that encourage constant play. In short, it's exactly like most good F2P games out on the market.

You are building a career on platitudes and disparaging other developers, while producing nothing that can be peer-reviewed. To say that a mother who clearly cares about raising her children and a PhD candidate are lacking in compassion because they disagree with you is rude, unprofessional, and damaging to your own reputation.


Sources:
http://www.business.ftc.gov/documents/Complying-with-COPPA-Freque
ntly-Asked-Questions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaget's_theory_of_cognitive_develop
ment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postformal_thought
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_of_Hierarchical_Complexity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Adult_Development
http://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/psych406-5.
3.2.pdf
Ajzen, I. (2002), Perceived Behavioral Control, Self-Efficacy, Locus of Control, and the Theory of Planned Behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32: 665–683. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00236.x
http://minerva.mq.edu.au:8080/vital/access/manager/Repository/mq:
6094

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/consumer-enforcement/oft1506a.pd
f

http://wiki.worldoftanks.com/Gold_Economy

And then, of course, there are Ramin's many responses, which are worth reading just for the sake of being entertained.

I apologize for being so caught up in the debate and derailing the topic.

 

[The Mighty Gerbil]

Just to be clear none of this is to be reflected on you Tek because the idea behind the article I've long agreed with. You know how I feel about how crates = gambling. I remember Bird asking Valve's help service how they could do this and they referred to some legal loophole. If it was in "real life" it would be gambling and age restricted by law. The solution is simple. People stop acting like the internet is morally different than the physical world. Impose the equivalent level of law and parents monitor your kids just as you would in "real life".

With our government's current state I've been thinking a lot about the hot potato of passing responsibly around. It may have exacerbated my response though I felt it was measured, sorry if it was not the case. Reading the article the irksome part is he spends most of it inferring that people can't do anything to help themselves. The idea is to illicit pity but why do we need a biological reason to feel pity for an addict? We already do because they are addicted. It's saying be compassionate but actually hurts people by emphasizing an excuse not to try. That is not compassion. So you can see why that would irk someone who does want compassion.

I've said it again and again but it's like this...

Parents blame society.
Society blames the parents.
Child blames anything but themselves.

Can parents raise their child locked in a basement? No.
Can society create a perfect world. No.
Does a child have power to reshape his environment. No.

If a negligent person leaves a gun laying around they are responsible.
If a parent never teaches their child right from wrong they are responsible.
If that child doesn't listen to a parent saying not to play with a gun and blows off his head they are responsible.

Who's responsible for doing the right thing? Everyone! Reality does not respect age or medical condition. As everyone involved shares the consequences they share responsibly. Any one of those might have stopped that kid from dying. Yet repeatedly people nod their heads and point to one extreme as being the sole source of failure. While people bear different degrees of responsibility, the truth is we all bear some. Why the extreme of pointing to one as responsible alone? Because they all share one thing in common it's not "ME".

People "It's a free country I can play, and support, whatever game I like".
Parents "Well you know kids are going to find that stuff no matter what I do".
Kids "I have FAS. I can't resist buying things in games"

When no one tries everyone fails.

I don't play every game I'd like to. I avoid many lest I support immorality. Though if I wait for moral perfection I'd never play or watch anything (well anything modern). None of us can do it all alone.

I'm actually tickled pink that you spent your scant time on a discussion at all Tek, don't be afraid to post again .