I played F2P games for a number of years and spent probably thousands of dollars on one. I don't regret it. I made a lot of friends, one of whom I still hang out in real life, learned leadership skills, and it was a pleasurable pasttime.
They said they've spent "thousands" on a single mobile game.
We might just have different standards, but that's past "social drinker" status to me. I don't know anyone in my social circle (online or offline) that have spent that much on a mobile game, and my social circle games a lot.
How many thousands does someone have to spend to move past "social drinker"?
IDK, it's not really relevant to my point I don't think. It sounds bad to me too but you're not going to argue an addict into believing they're addicted, even if they are. My understanding of gambling addiction isn't that sophisticated but I think that sort of use still puts them firmly in the minor leagues of use.
Anyway though an essential mechanism of addictions is that they are dynamic. You can interview large groups of users of any drug (and also probably gambling) who will attest to its benefits in their lives. Even if they are currently correct, some of them will later become full blown addicts. It doesn't mean they were wrong at the time, just maybe overly confident about why it suits their lives.
A common AA dark joke is that "high-functioning isn't a type of alcoholism, it's a stage in it." A lot of normal users will end up addicts, a lot of mildly problem users will progress. AFAIK the same patterns show in gambling addiction which is imo one of the major problems with these super accessible entry points into it.
> They said they've spent "thousands" on a single mobile game. We might just have different standards, but that's past "social drinker" status to me.
Assuming “thousands” means 5000, thats 416 per month. Taking an average cost of 10/drink (5 for beer, 15 for cocktail - this skews higher in major cities, lower out of major cities, lower still outside of cities), thats ~8 drinks a week.
The difference seems to be whether its social or alone. I've never spent anything on microtransactions/f2p, but I've certainly spent money on alcohol. It's a world of difference spending $100 in a night with good friends, and $50 on a night alone at home.
Alcohol recovery meetings are absolutely full of people who have to say "I thought if I wasn't doing it alone it wasn't alcoholism." The social context of use is only one factor, it can't be used by itself to determine if the use is a problem.
would make friends over chat. I had some friendly interactions with other Hearthstone players, and could see how we might have established friendships (I did playing WoW, though the game was the glue and I only have the good memories of those shared experiences now).
I finally pulled the plug on videogaming, though, because I found it too compelling; when everything else pales in comparison, and all I think about is the game, and after playing I don't feel very good (as opposed to after reading, for example), it's time to recognize my limitations and stop. I'm still riding out the withdrawals, as autumn is a time where I feel especially drawn to that escape, but I'm confident it'll get easier and I'll continue to thank myself for making the leap.
I do need to actively remind myself that my experience is not universal, and that videogames can be part of a healthy and/or social life.
"Gacha" games typically have some kind of "guild" system (often as another ploy to increase stickiness and engagement) and many better guilds will have Discord servers.
No, I think F2P is just another way to fund game development. There's no indication that it will cannibalize premium games. So everyone can play games the way they want to play them.
Mobile gaming created an entirely new sector and doubled the total revenue of the games industry. It did it by finding people who weren't playing games, and giving them games to play. I think a lot of the panic around microtransactions is a response to the demographics shifting away from a small group of self-identifying gamers, and investors paying proportionate attention to the demographic trends.
The two markets of course influence each other, but I view that as a net good which drives innovation in both spaces. Nobody is forced to spend money on video games, so if you don't like a game's business model you don't have to spend any money on it. If others agree, it will flop; and the next generation of games will take history into account.
> doubled the total revenue of the games industry. It did it by finding people who weren't playing games, and giving them games to play
Found a way to skirt regulation and get more people hooked on slot machine type games who previously couldn't be reached due to access or legal issues.
paypal (originally): we're not a bank (we only offer payment services)
uber: we're not a taxi service (we only offer ride booking; and our employees are independent contractors)
airbnb: we're not a hotel service (we only offer short-term rentals)
f2p: we're not gambling (we only hook whales on slot machine-like games)
I think hate of micro-transactions comes from the value perspective of those who choose to not participate. More traditional games are pretty cheap if you compare them and spending on f2p type of games can rack up. To substantial numbers. When talking about hundreds or thousands spends you could get dozens or hundreds of very decent traditional titles for that money...
Maybe part of the fear is that those consuming traditional games would end up spending lot more per game and that is not entirely unreasonable...
