What has the world come to

Sitting on the bus, see an old guy(50-60ish) in the seat in front of me playing some game on his phone, just clicking treasure chests to open them, spent like 15 bucks in 10 minutes on pure S***.

I dunno even if its the whole game(assuming not but i dont even know anymore) but that all he did, open loot boxes, buy premuim currency, repeat.

Im starting to want to make crap like that myself and laugh at idiots giving me money(but i wont haha)

Not really a point to the post, just want to shout WTF and my friends are sick of my game related rants.

And ill bet money it was made in unity from the UI

 

Yes, gambling IS addictive.

 

Education is key.

 

To loot boxes?

 

Well, yeah.. teaching people why they are bad and how they are beign manipulated to spend spend spend.

 

If that worked, casinos literally would not exist.

 

Well it does work, but people are just idots that wont listen to some one smarter than them, they get offended when you show them the stats and ration yhem through it.

I work at a casio as my day job btw, hehe

 

That's not because they're "idiots who won't listen" but because it turns out that dopamine and reward cycles are pretty F***ing powerful.

Then you really have no place complaining about phone game monetization.

 

Yeah i realize that(the dopamine part), but there are lots of other ways to get that rush, some of them actually beneficial to you..

I dont think your right about me not having a right, first its not a full-blown vegas style casino, its a virtual part of the shop i work at.

Even if it was, im just the cash-register guy, i only spin the roulette, im not in marketing, i don't push people to gamble, i actually encourge them to stop when they breakdown infornt of me.
I think im free to rant, and i dont take it personally, its not my money, i dont really care that much

 

Not to the same extent or the same rate or with the allure of an immediate reward.

That's still a willing part of the whole gambling economy, which is fundamentally exploitative, just like the games you're railing against.

My dude, if people are breaking down in front of you, they're well past the point where they should have stopped.

Then why make a thread? Why expect people to take you seriously when you complain about a gambling game when you are an integral part of a gambling system?

 

Not all people are equal about gambling mechanics - some peole will ruin themselves in casinos - just like not all people are equal about junk food - some people will eat 5000 calories every day just to not feel empty. All education can teach you is that different people have different, unfair limits, and that you have to adapt to them if you want a happy life - and look for professional help it feels like an overly difficult task.

 

If education is all you need, professional help shouldn't be a factor, should it?

 

Isn't it what I said ? - sorry, english isn't my primary language. Education has its limits, and when these limits are reached (and for some people, they will inevitably be reached for familial or medical reasons), then professional help is required.

 

It'd be funny if he were the developer and he was just playtesting the game on his way to his day job.

 

Wow. OP you have a pretty judgmental (and negative) attitude.

I'll bite.

What is bothersome about this notion that games and such being 'addictive' just like illicit substances. For one, illicit drugs are addictive because they have a chemical effect that artificially changes the chemicals in the brain. Second: if everything is drug, then nothing is. We may as well all just give up on life because we'll be addicted to anything and everything (eventually).

 

Legal substances can be addictive. Addiction as a disorder is not limited to drugs or chemical substances.

 

Gambling is addictive because it has a chemical effect that artificially changes the chemicals in the brain.

No one said this.

 

The only solution to meaninglessness is to create more things that have meaning.

 

OP @Murgilod hit the nail on the head with the comment about dopamine.

On my masters I was writing a rhythm action game that was on mobile and had loot chests, as was recommended by my tutor when exploring monetisation.

During testing, I found that I myself was getting sucked in to playing the loot chest system again and again as it got pretty addictive.

Now I am an addictive person by nature so maybe not the best litmus test, but I was surprised by how even without the smoke and mirrors (understanding the internals of the game and systems behind as I authored it) it was still pretty addictive.

What was a major factor was when I put in lots of feedback. Before the visual and audio feedback was implemented I didnt really feel any emotion opening a chest in my game, afterwards it made it addictive.

Interestingly my family work with adults who suffer from severely high or low functioning autism (dependent on the individual) and the sorts of games they enjoy have similar visual feedback, so it really is the dopamine reward that becomes addictive, and it certainly is due to something in all of us.

Certainly not because they are "idiots" as you put it OP.

....Ofcourse, I am an idiot as I was roped into playing the lootbox spinner on my own game again and again, by none other than myself. But thats not what we are debating here....

 

Yep.^

Where is the blame? The victims weakness or the predators voracity?

Endless, useless argument. It is clear that there is a certain weakness that is being taken advantage of. Know where you stand and do what you can to make an actual impact. Make the game that champions the values you hold dear. Or not. Write your congressman. Lobby. Or not. Raise awareness by educating those most effected. Help a friend in need.

But prolonging useless arguments by turning everything into a chance to flaunt your ego helps no one and does nothing. "People are weak addicts" = "look at me, I'm special." "Corporations are evil and people should love eachother," = "look at me, I'm special."

Everybody is special. Nobody cares.

"Hey friend, don't you know games like that using the same techniques as casinos to manipulate you and spend your money for nothing? My friends and I have game night tomorrow, why don't you come over?" = actual change in somebodies life.

 

There is a difference between "natural" and "artificial", in fact they are antonyms. By artificial the meaning is it has a direct influence on the chemical composition of the brain. Ie. some substance enters the body and alters consciousness. Hence it is artificial. Natural alteration of the brains reward systems are created by the mind and various activities. No chemicals that aren't already in the body actually enter the system. Hence it is natural.

I implied this. The quote above is therefore categorically false.

 

Yes, everyone knows gambling is a thing found in nature. I believe it mainly grows in the rainforest.

But even then, what does this distinction mean? Even if it’s natural, does it mean it’s not addicting?

 

Breading air is hell of addicting. I just want to do it all the time. I think I should start taking meds, to cure that addiction ...

 

Well there was once a definition that included only substances. I dunno where this modern notion came from, but its wrong.

To answer your question: if it's natural generally then people have the ability to stop themselves. Addictive drugs generally alter a person's brain in such a way that they fine it difficult to stop the use of it... external and artificial influences versus internal (consumptive) influences.

To complain that a particular act of which does not enter your body being addictive is to deny ones own agency.

 

Lots of things are addicting, and lots of addicting things are perfectly legal.

People are also entitled to do stupid things if they want to, be it making dumb games or playing them.

 

So does gambling. I understand you don’t like that for whatever reason, but that’s how it is.

 

It came from literal medical professionals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_addiction

 

From that article:

In general substance addiction is something that applies to everyone. Anyone can become addicted to drugs as they are very powerful, but it will require a medical diagnosis for this behavioral addiction (read: not everyone).

Note that as per the article, internet gaming and gambling are not (currently) part of the DSM (but have been proposed for DSM 5).

I get it though, you guys oppose literally anything that I say whether it has merit or not.

Fly those colors!

 

Here's another link from that same article that you conveniently ignored that explains the entire method of action.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOSB#Delta_FosB

The reason people oppose the things you say, especially in this regard, is because they are fundamentally disconnected from reality based evidence. Also, the DSM is almost universally a few years behind. On top of that, DSM iterations are constantly updated and improved upon during their lifecycle. The entire thing about DSM-5 is that it's designed around these incremental updates.

edit: Hell, you know what? Here's the first line of the wikipedia entry for addiction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction

 

Honestly the assertion that my views are "disconnected from reality based evidence" is really not fair and on the border of a direct insult. I owe you no explanations. Though I will say that I did not "conveniently leave out certain parts of information" as you attempt to frame things, I never got so far into the article.

Anytime I use first person words (i tested this here and my hypothesis has been shown true) you come out to attack me or tell me I'm wrong, while other statements are ignored or vehemently discussed in opposition. This shows that its about me, not my views.

 

It's about your views because you hold views that are wrong as they are countered by easily available evidence that you choose to disregard.

 

Murgilod, why are you such a troll? You seem like one of the smarter people on the forums when it comes to unity, but you have the maturity of a 12 year old. Grow up

 

yeah, it's a shame. clearly she is smart and has some experience, but she is always so mean -- turns everything into a name calling spat. I wish we could get more of the good stuff from her, and less of the bad.

Brainee used to be so polite. He was sharing his WIP models, asking questions...now look what he hath become.

One person can make all the difference in the culture of a place. It doesn't matter if you are right or wrong -- if you make a habit of being mean, rude, unpleasant, etc, everybody suffers.

 

Calling somebody out for saying that the only kind of addiction that has any meaningful impact is a chemical one is not trolling, you clown.

In fact, this was covered the last time you pulled this nonsense.

https://forum.unity.com/threads/vfx-graph-with-lwrp.635161/#post-4259284

 

Without ignoring the rest of the article:

That is what is said in this article about the difference between addiction and dependence.

Links to check:

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publicati...ction-heroin-morphine/8-definition-dependence

https://www.asam.org/resources/definition-of-addiction

Those I googled. They differ from the wikipedia article, which cites that addiction and dependence can occur in any combination.

The text in bold in that quote highlights particularly the fact that we are talking two different things. When I say "addiction" I refer to the definition of dependence, though as highlighted that is commonly referred to as addiction (and in everyday life that is its definition, at least around these parts). Ya know it was not clear if there were another word for what was meant in my previous posts, which makes Wikipedia very illuminating.

I've been in class all day. I haven't had time to sit down and explore the materials available to understand this fully. Admittedly I sometimes make assumptions (we all do) or speak to things that I don't fully understand. Ain't nobody perfect.

 

You might want to reassess what you just highlighted there.

 

Have I been rude? Maybe, I'm not sure though I'm trying my damndest to debate politely. Notice I haven't specifically called names or issued any insults, if my memory serves me. I understand what you mean by that effect @BIGTIMEMASTER .

Explanation: I don't particularly care for tip-toeing around others feelings all the time anymore. I reserve politeness, but I don't intend to self-censor or hold my views back because others might disagree or be offended. It is exhausting trying to please everyone. In addition I have learned that it is self-defeating to never stand your ground, when you obviously have reason for the things that you do and believe. I'm doing this for myself, and nobody else. For far too long I've bought into everybody else's views and never stood for myself. That is to change.

With that said I am always open to critique. Its true that what your critics say about you or your work holds at least some truth to it, regardless of how snotty or mean it may come off. Enemies are brutally honest (and none of you are my enemies btw).

Hence why I have bridged the gap in my last post, going so far as to read up on the neuroscience and psychology of behavioral addiction and delta-FOSB. I'm calling it for now, there are more pressing things I must do, but I'll be paying attention.

@Murgilod I believe what I highlighted was exactly what I meant, unless I am confused.

 

It's not hurting others peoples feelings we care about. It's not about pleasing anybody. It's about being effective, maintaining and building new relationships, and keeping the ship afloat so we don't all drown together.

Not that there is any onus to act strictly professionally here, or that most of us really try to, but there is a degree of politeness most adult humans maintain and it's for good reason. People who don't understand this ruin public discourse and if we can't have intelligent discourse then how are we different from a rabble of angry chimps?

If you don't know how to keep a tough conversation from becoming impolite, just don't say anything. It's easy. But if you can learn how to disagree while still respecting the other person and maintaining civiliity, then when you go to your professional job you don't always have to shutup and not have voice. You might even become a leader, because most people do choose to be quiet and follow -- which is fine, of course.

So watch Murg's example here, and basically do the opposite.

 

'nuff.