The people who make these sorts of games aren't gamedevs. They are social engineers.
It's unfortunate that the distinction hasn't been very clearly defined. It's not true that just because they've created an interactive loop that they've made a game.
The problem with this approach is that it absolves any such person who considers themselves a true game developer of the responsibility. I think it's more valuable to view social engineering as the dark side of game development, and look for ways to minimise it.
It's similar to the way software developers often come up with (or are asked to come up with) "dark patterns" to manipulate users into signing up for stuff or buying stuff without realising it. It's our responsibility as developers to recognise when this is happening and actively work to stop it.
Should be interesting exploration of morality and ethics in it. Only real shame is that current game design of the game I'm working on doesn't include parody of it all. I'm just not that good a game designer yet. :)
Of course there are companies who don't know any better that are trying to money grab as much as possible, but they're not as successful as you might think. They achieve ranking with a large advertising budget before disappearing into obscurity. But what a lot of people don't want to accept is that a game like FarmVille is a good game that many people legitimately enjoy and feel good spending money on.
What i understand from the article is that people don't regret their purchases immediately. What they regret is the realization that they spent way too much on their game. And thus there should be mechanisms to avoid that regret. And so i love the 2nd suggestion.