These sort of games work because they get people addicted, and then blackmail them into paying money to make the games easier for them.
I don't think this is exactly the case. They sell a service. Whether you deem it a service of value or not is irrelevant.
Gambling is heavily regulated for a reason. I would say that games like these should be regulated just as much.
Imagine going to the arcades, playing street fighter II, and it saying "We know you can't get on the score board because you suck, but if you pay $20 we'll put you at the top of the score board anyway". Would that be completely fine and above board?
And yes, it would be totally fine. If you don't like it you don't have to play Street Fighter II. And given that it costs 50 cents a play and has a steep learning curve, that's effectively what they do in a roundabout way.
I don't think it's about being puritan, it's about protecting the most vulnerable members of society from themselves.
For example, say you get 95% of the way through a game, then the game asks for $100 to get past an absolutely impossible stage, they'd probably get a fantastic amount of people spending the $100 reluctantly. Which IMHO isn't a nice way to do things.
But that aside, thankfully capitalism doesn't require you to find a "nice" way of doing things. I'm as addicted to shaving as any player is to a Facebook game. (We could both stop, but don't want to.) I'm even more addicted to food. But that doesn't mean Gilette and Whole Foods are scammers.
Having said all this, it's clearly extremely lucrative to setup games like this.
It's more of a bait/switch than an honest upfront cost for entertainment.
The player makes their own fun by setting themselves goals and challenges that match their personalities and skill sets (that they find enjoyable). As their skills develop (or they simply get bored) they naturally find new, different, more challenging things to do until the game can no longer satisfy them.
Zynga provide a free framework and a whole load of extras to enable people to have fun. You can progress for free according to a number of pre-designed interpretations of how you can progress in the game, or you can short-cut for cash and do the bits you really enjoy, and you spend more as you explore different options. It practically screams "revenue stream".
Obviously it's all set up to make loads of cash, but I see it as enabling fun rather than a scam or "accomplishment lite".
of course, the fact that matt refers to users of products he doesn't like with terms far, FAR worse than 'stupid' kind of negates his point.
And if you think the lottery is stupid, you should not ever work in the game design industry.
They are offering you an 'easier game' for money. When you're competing against other people, that's an un-level playing field.
I'm pretty sure people who run lotteries think they are stupid. They are a tax on the poor, but they're extremely effective at raising money.
Some may think people who play the lottery are stupid. There's a very big difference.
I see your distinction though, I was meaning the latter when I said "lotteries are stupid".