Hacker News Reader

Comment by rjh29 | Hacker News Reader

Surely it's even worse, because it's available 24/7 wherever you are, instead of being somewhere you have to physically visit.

View on HN

Plenty of online casinos exist as well.

This comment is naive, from someone who doesn't understand the different dynamics.

The "play-for-fun" casinos successfully utilize the onboarding process to attract, and even create, the people most likely to be exploited by these games. Real-money, online casinos require a real-money deposit to get started, therefore, few people download the apps to begin with without being at least a somewhat-experienced brick-and-mortar casino gambler who is prepared to deposit real money.

Play-for-fun attracts casuals looking for the next Candy Crush or Bejeweled and might get a week of play (grooming, essentially) before even being asked for an in-game purchase. Further, specifically because play-for-fun is NOT gambling, they are unregulated and have no requirement to be fair or random. The developers can insert all kinds of manipulations and scripted outcomes that encourage more play and more importantly, more real-money purchases. They can amplify the payouts over time so initially, a few thousand coins is exciting, then tens of thousands, then millions. The coin purchases get more expensive as the player requires higher amounts to maintain their levels.

Lastly, it isn't like real online casinos aren't addicting or potentially problematic. Through 9 months of 2023, New Jersey online casinos have generated $1.41 billion, 65% of the brick-and-mortar casino revenue ($2.17 billion). And since online casinos and sports betting are growing much faster, they will likely surpass b-and-m a few years from now. Basically, New Jersey has created an army of addicts in a single decade, and many other states are following suit.

https://www.nj.gov/oag/ge/docs/Financials/PressRelease2023/S...

Why the deflection? Both are a problem, no? One just slips past the “oh gambling is bad for you” mental defense

Problem for whom? We also have luxury stores selling expensive designer goods that people waste millions on.

Why do we care so much about this specific form of people wasting their money? What’s wrong with letting people go broke the way they choose?

The comparison to luxury goods is not really accurate here IMO. When you purchase a luxury watch you get something tangible in return. These apps purposely prey on psychological weaknesses to get people addicted - a better comparison would be something like phone call scams.

Wait, per $ spent luxury clothes are generally as practically useless as skins in a game. And, people who sell them do it by tapping into social status instincts. So whether tangible, or not, I don't see much difference

Gambling engages the brain's reward system, releasing neurotransmitters like dopamine, creating a pleasurable experience. This reinforcement mechanism, coupled with the unpredictable nature of wins, contributes to the development of addiction. The element of chance activates cognitive processes that can lead to irrational beliefs, such as the illusion of control or the gambler's fallacy. Factors like accessibility, environmental cues, and social reinforcement further shape addictive behavior. Unlike purchasing goods, where the exchange is tangible and predictable, gambling introduces a unique set of psychological stimuli, risk factors, and reinforcement mechanisms that can lead to addictive patterns and challenges in self-control.

Thanks, this explanation makes much more sense. However, it's still misses the fact that dopamine involved in our lives very widely, and addictions can be developed to practically anything. "Normal" games are a good example, as well as obsessive buying, or aesthetic procedures, caffeine, sugar. All this things (and many more) can become uncontrollable, and dangerous to the point of death. When people demand something to be prohibited because they got moved by a story of a poor soul destroyed by addiction they must realize logical implications. Like way more people affected by alcohol than by gambling, and yet at this times most people would point you that prohibition didn't work.

You've still created a tangible product, that someone gets utility value out of, and they could potebtially resell if needed.

The good itself is produced by employees, has material inputs from suppliers, contributes to the economy in other ways.

I can agree with reselling part (not sure if it works for every luxury item, but I guess in general it should). But economically it's still the same. Revenue makes salaries, taxes, it contributes to specific research areas (as other commenter noted bot detection got funded by this induatry) etc.

I don't think you fully understand the issue if you compare this to people buying expensive designer goods.

If you know something others don't then please explain. Otherwise, why bother to comment?

I really think you do not understand the seriousness of gambling addiction. This is not just some excessive discretionary spending. Gambling addicts have a compulsive behaviour that is virtually impossible for them to control. I feel terrible for people with this affliction. It is life-destroying.

Luxury stores don't engage in predatory dark patterns, like luring you in with "f2p" and so on.

I would say the problem isn't that it's a "waste", it's that the way it is sold is practically fraud. If the game was presented authentically as "pay $100 to click a button 100 times and watch some animations" then I don't really think it would be very addicting.

and NFT JPEGs. I agree, there's a lot of things people spend their money on, the collectibles industry for example is known for this. Luxury goods appeal to people projecting status because of brand names. Your question is valid, why do we only care about this specific form? In this instance I think it's because it's about designing apps to be addictive, although I don't really agree with that being the case here. There's online or even digital slot machines that are not designed to be addictive, they are just virtual slot machines. Then there's trading crypto, options and stocks, industries whose marketing and pump schemes are all about projecting an image and manipulating emotions to convince people to buy into what are often scams if not an inversion narrative (which is where you buy into a system rigged against you by some kind of monopoly that when you look at the mechanics functions exactly the way a Ponzi scheme does). I also don't think you are deflecting.

> Your question is valid, why do we only care about this specific form?

Why do you think people only care about this specific form? It's definitely one of the most discussed forms but I'd think that's mainly because it's a relatively novel medium.

I feel much the same way about betting shops, luxury brands, etc. as I do these "games". Luxury brands are often particularly detestable. It has become almost impossible to determine whether you're paying for a good quality product or just burning money. Even when of good quality, brands often go far beyond what could be considered moral. Hermes springs to mind in particular, convincing people to debase themselves in the hopes of being offered the chance to purchase an overpriced bag.

In this case, I believe the point is the lack of gatekeeping. For Luxury brands, you have to have that amount to start getting them. For physical casinos, you have to leave your dwelling to go there. However, for these sorts of games not only is it easy, but almost forced on people that play any other ad-based game. I know people don't have to click on the ad, but they do. In fact, realistically that's probably 90-95% of the games out there - start free, then have players pay to get "better" virtual items/outcomes. Futhermore, once you start those same factors are amplified. Instead of having to go somewhere else, you can game at any time, so there is even less reason to have second thoughts about it.

are you from the 80's?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com