Hacker News Reader

Comment by jammygit | Hacker News Reader

I was talking to my wife the other day about how League of Legends used to accept Subway gift cards as a form of payment. My theory was that it was to get at kids lunch money in case the parents wouldn't give them money for a game - that way they could target vulnerable kids with their systems.

I can't know if I was right or not, and its pretty cynical, but in this other case from the article we have Angry Birds with an average player age of 5 years old using deceptive in-game currencies and gambling/behaviourist inspired design practices to make thousands of dollars off of certain young high risk players.

Every year that goes by I'm shocked this sort of thing continues to be legal

View on HN

Before that we had (and still have) Magic the Gathering. I remember spending a huge amount on money on "boosters": packs of random cards with a chance of containing a good or rare one.

Then you had (still have) Mac Donald and their monopoly game.

And you had (and still have) the TV games where you could send a text, and before that call, for a chance to win, with ads during kids show. And before that, you could send a letter.

In France we had a sweet called "mistral gagnant", which you bought because if the sweet was a winner, you'd get another one for free.

I'm pretty sure things existed way, way, before that, I'm just not aware of it.

Adults seem pretty susceptible to all of the above as well.

What's bad for children is always bad for adults, but because we already have defense and coping mechanisms, we got the illusion of control.

> ...because we already have defense and coping mechanisms, we got the illusion of control.

Agreed, and just wanted to add that it's surprising just how many adults don't seem have these mechanisms. Perhaps a form of learned helplessness by being subjected to this kind of thing from childhood?

Thats why we have gambling regulations.

> Before that we had Magic the Gathering.

Similar to Pokemon, you at least got something tangible. Even if MtG or Pokemon shutdown tomorrow, you can still play with your cards until you die, and then your kids can play with them.

Or you can sell them to other kids or collectors.

> Then you have Mac Donald and their monopoly game.

Also, here you got a tangible benefit (you got fed).

This is the key difference versus paying for Ninja Wars, or even for non-pay2win-stuff like "skins". The second the game servers get shut down is also the second your collection becomes worthless. And if you're done with the game you can't even sell on your stuff to someone else.

Gambling (especially aimed at minors) def gives me an "icky" feeling too, but I'm not sure the "tangible" aspect is very key.

To me, it seems like McDonald's food that's physical but lasts a short time is about as tangible as a skin that's not physical but you can use for years.

> To me, it seems like McDonald's food that's physical but lasts a short time is about as tangible as a skin that's not physical but you can use for years.

Well... at least with McD there is a natural limit on how much one can spend on gambling Monopoly (=how much you can eat before having to barf). With most digital goods, there is no such limit, and to make it psychologically worse, there is nothing actually "representing" what you got for your money - it's all numbers and code that depends on a central server.

Isn't McD worse then? It's encouraging people to eat/drink more sugar and carbs then one should just for a chance to win. Making them more unhealthly. There is also no limit, people can (and do) buy it and chuck it away. Or eat part of it. And end of the day you have nothing "representing" what you got for your money except some more weight on the scale. The skin lasts a lot longer and is better then junk food. At least the skin is neutral, McD has a negative benefit even if it is more tangible.

Watching a movie on a DVD or from a file on your hard drive is still a movie, tangible or not.

In the example of the Magic card, those cards had no value for a human being, biologically speaking. We gave them value. You could as well write the card text on a piece of paper and play it the same way.

The fact they are tangible pieces of paper doesn't erase the gambling-for-children aspect. Nor does it give them any more real value than a video game bonus. They have the value we estimate in our heads.

You give for example a low value to a LoL skin. But to a player that spends hours a day on it, and use it as a central platform for social interactions and fun, the skin has an impact, and for a long time.

I played dota for a years, I never bough a skin, but when I won one, I sure used it.

A difference with MtG is also the target market. I started playing with 8, went to my first tournament (also the first time I met players other than my best friend) at 10 and we got laughed at for having German cards. Pretty much everyone was 5-7 years older than us.

Not sure how it is nowadays, but on the other hand, from what I read, you just buy whatever deck you want directly instead of going through boosters.

Collectible card games are literally the same as the stuff you get in CS:GO, that is, the CS:GO random items can be resold for a lot more money than you invest in it - if you get lucky.

But I just don't know why people are all up in arms about these things now when random card packs and such were a thing a while ago.

Remember when you could buy people things on Facebook for around $1 that were essentially icons? I can't remember exactly how it worked or what they called them, but I remember thinking at the time that you're essentially paying for a PNG to be displayed by someone's name and finding it weird. For a lark I wrote to their support team and suggested that I'd design them an icon for a cut of its revenue, and got a generic "thanks for the idea, we'll think about it" email response.

They were called gifts. I thought it was a kind of clever way of displaying status and demonstrating that you were thinking of someone, just like real gifts or cards. I definitely would prefer a social network with modest ambitions that covered its costs this way rather than targeted advertising and pay to win social gaming.

Magic the Gathering was less popular and less known. Less kids ended up putting that much money into it.

It was same money suck and I don't see how its precedence make anything better.

Magic the Gathering also has the benefit of training the children in manipulating complex systems with strict rules and adversaries. The amount of abstract thinking, long-, mid- and short-term planning, statistics, environment surveying, ... I will literally do my best to get my children into this or a similar game.

But that doesn't detract from the previous commenter's point: gambling aimed at children has always been there. Internet is merely an amplifier here.

Yes it was, but issue affected small enough community and was easier to control (due to social pressure being lower on average kid). I am glad we are finally calling it what it is.

All those positive things can be learned in ways that do not require kids to play super expensive pay to win game.

What would be such a way? I'm genuinely interested.

My son(12) just got a couple mtg decks for Christmas so I'm getting into it with him. I had only played it once when I was around his age. You are correct, there is so much to it I was amazed how deep it gets. Fantastic game.

So what?

Maybe this difference doesn't matter but you can technically play Magic the Gathering by copying the cards or drawing your own. Get out a piece of paper, start drawing the stats on the cards. Play the game.

In other words, you're not paying for the game, your paying to collect cards. I never personally understood it but watched friends, family, and co-workers spent $2k-$5k on cards back in the mid 90s.

That seems different to me in some subtle way from in-game purchases in video games.

Indeed, it's pretty common to 'proxy' more expensive cards when playing casually. Of course, if you want to play in a sanctioned tournament, you need to pony up.

Draw your own cards and try bring it to a game, see how that goes down.

I'd love to see a really talented and fast working artist modify their deck mid-tournament to always be best prepared for their coming opponent and the deck they are known to use. I'm sure that wouldn't go over too well.

I have wondered whether MtG wasn't just a clever way to prep an audience to buy into the Bitcoin, um, idea. There are lots of connections between the two, obviously, and I'm pretty sure years ago I heard someone propose that Richard Garfield is or personally knows Satoshi.

respectfully, that's a little bit ridiculous. MtG is neither the first nor only TCG to sell randomized booster packs, and it has been around for a quarter-century. i don't see any connections between the two besides those that are generically inherent to microeconomies.

Monopoly seems a lot less predatory. You're not paying for a chance to get the company's core product - some food. You're paying for food with a chance to get something extra.

League of Legends recently came out with a new shenanigan, a new skin that is not even particularly good but it exploits the "boxes" system and it's very rare. People calculated that it's could cost at least $150 to get it. It's clearly a tactic to squeeze people out of money more than give something worth.

I too am shocked that this sort of stuff is not looked at closer since I work in the adult video gaming industry and I can see how strict the laws in some countries are around how we CAN NOT ABSOLUTELY have any imagery that could appeal to children. I think it's fair and this sort of games should get regulated too.

These companies spend a lot of money trying to optimise their profits. If the laws tightened up then they would simply try to exploit as much as possible within their legal limits. Mobile applications can make huge profits from exploiting human psychology and I don't see lawmakers being able to effectively curb this anytime soon.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com