The (im)morality of allowing whales to pay for our entertainment

[Deleted member 18379]

Some people derive pleasure from spending money and collecting useless things. People do it with Beanie Babies, Mcdonald's toys, trading cards, etc. Heck, I have a good friend who consistently buys new purses until she is broke and is forced to sell her things to pay the bills. This isn't a loot box problem as much as it is a money and mental one. It's like people who eat themselves into obesity. We can't make food the enemy here and we shouldn't be blaming lootboxes for poor spending habits. Rather than calling people who enjoy entertainment supported by whales immoral, maybe you should try engaging the whales themselves in conversation and understanding their pov. Thats just my opinion though.

 

[xlestattx]

Whales are a phenomena like gambling problems, and I think sooner or later deliberate targeting of them in this way still start to be made illegal in more and more countries.

I think I'll be pretty supportive of that.

Click to shrink...

I honestly dont see legislation against this coming any time soon in the US. Vegas has destroyed thousands of lives and continues to do so, yet it's all still perfectly legal.

 

[Fart Master]

who said anything about "worrying about the business side"? Everything is a value proposition. Game costs $x to make. They sell it for $y. They sell it for $y with micro transactions. They sell it for $y with season passes. With online codes. With paid expansions. etc.

Speak with your wallet. This thread is basically a bunch of people bitching because they don't like what OTHER people are saying with their wallets.. wtf? If you don't like it, don't support it. But to be mad that other people support it and then file it under "well the company should have never made it then they wouldn't have supported it"

seriously, wtf..

Click to shrink...

Has speak with your wallet become the go to response to ignore any arguments against publishers.

I payed 60 bucks Halo and I'd appreciate that the content that in past game wasn't locked random boxes was available to me. My argument is simple, it's the publishers job to make sure that games that are charging 60 bucks are actually making there money with that price rather than going over budget and off setting that on the consumer, that's assuming the publisher isn't being greedy and want more money from the consumer. The small amount of people that pay for loot boxes specifically are being taken advantage of by money hungry suits and arguing otherwise as a consumer makes no sense.

 

[Clawbvious]

The reactions in here seem a little split.

I want to approach an important issue though, the idea that people "choose" to spend money and so we have no moral responsibility to them.

Retail Psychologists have literally spent decades ensuring that you are manipulated subconsciously to make buying decisions. The tempo of music in your supermarket, the scent they deploy through HVAC defusers at clothing stores, the layout of furniture stores, the color of the walls. All of these things are organized to affect your subconscious to ensure that you spend a higher percentage of money per year at that store, to transform window shoppers into repeat customers.

As a society, we are responsible for that. We allow these practices to continue even though they actively manipulate the consumer in a way that doesn't allow for informed choice.

The person who spends two hundred dollars on Hearthstone cards because the color and sound of the pack opening is explicitly designed to activate and engage pleasure in the subconscious is also being manipulated. If we agree that this is alright, then we are accepting that companies have the right to use signals that we're not even aware of to try and sell us more things.

I, for one, don't believe that it is acceptable for companies to use subliminal messaging to influence my decisions as a consumer. Even though our choices are affected by many subconscious signals from all areas of life, I still don't want Walmart to use those tools to make me buy more Oreos, and I think I have a moral obligation to make sure that Walmart isn't making other citizen who might not want to buy all those Oreos make bad decisions.

Part of living in a society is deciding to what extent we believe we are responsible for the well being of others, and multi-million dollar companies using psychology to encourage people to spend money in ways in which they cannot make an informed decision falls into my "I care" camp.

 

[Quantum]

I think I'm not understanding the initial question, or not understanding people assigning self-righteous moral values to other adult decisions.

the OP asks 'are we complicit in the exploitation of whales by accepting these models as just another model that makes more money? Are we complicit in the exploitation of whales by saying we don't mind loot boxes so long as we get our free DLC?'

from my perspective
- the discussion is not about a child buying something without consent
- the discussion is not about you assigning your personal belief on an adults decision on how to spend money
- the discussion is not about gambling

Whales by definition are people who spend a lot of money for something they want more than the average person.
- while this includes people with addiction problems it is not indicative of all the people that spend money on something YOU consider not worth while.

asking if we are complicit implies that lootboxes are commiting a crime or doing something wrong. certainly they are "just another model that makes more money" but I am really not seeing how they are committing a crime.

are these systems abused? yes.
Could they be implemented better? yes.
Are you allowed to be offended by them? yes.

do you get to impose your moral values on whether these systems continue to exist? yes - stop using them.

 

[borghe]

the problem with "society protecting people from themselves" is it becomes a very slippery slope. Who are you to determine what I am or am not allowed to do with my free time and/or discretionary spending? Now obviously as things enter the realm of public health and safety, "who are you" becomes the government. But we are talking about buying stuff for video games. Not hunting other humans for sport.

i.e.

Part of living in a society is deciding to what extent we believe we are responsible for the well being of others

Click to shrink...

you sure as heck better ASK me if I want your concern before forcing it on me..

edit - in full disclosure, I think it can be easily guessed that I've spent plenty of money on various f2p games including Hearthstone, Marvel Heroes, Fate Grand Order, etc.

I would also like to state that obviously it would be grand if all games cost $30 like when I was a kid, that DLC and IAP didn't exist, and that you unlocked stuff included for free in the game.

But the latter paragraph is gone and will never exist again, so I make decisions case by case in the former paragraph. I speak with my wallet.

 

[PogiJones]

I guess I just buy the notion that whale-hunting is more psychologically manipulative, particularly for those prone to addiction, than your run-of-the-mill marketing techniques--so much so that they cross a line that reaches into needing to be regulated. The fact that something like 1-2% of users are paying for 98-99% of others' games says to me it's abnormal in its ability to manipulate some individuals.

I mean, I get personal responsibility--I'm a huge advocate of it, in fact. If I'm talking to whales, I'm not going to tell them it's all the companies' fault and that they shouldn't try to change. No, I'll tell them to take responsibility for their actions, get better, and start thinking of how it affects those around them.

Conversely, when speaking to a company or about regulations, I'm going to be emphasizing the companies' massive roles in instituting these mechanisms meant to hunt out whales.

I mean, personal responsibility is not mutually exclusive with trying to mitigate external manipulative factors.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

I think there should be a limit to how much money you can spend on a game. Just as an example, lets say you put the cap at $999, if you want to spend more than $999 on the game, you can find a way to prove that you're capable of paying such a large sum of money. (I suppose they could check your card limit or something, idk)

If its rich people paying thousands and they can afford to do so then i guess thats fine.

 

[Deified Data]

For real though, whether you pay for loot boxes or not you endorse their use by buying any game that sells them - I'm not kidding, when publishers review the sales figures for a game they will factor in the presence of loot boxes into its success and continue accordingly. If this is something that concerns you there are many great single-player games that don't nickel and dime you with side content.

 

[Bhonar]

The reactions in here seem a little split.

I want to approach an important issue though, the idea that people "choose" to spend money and so we have no moral responsibility to them.

Retail Psychologists have literally spent decades ensuring that you are manipulated subconsciously to make buying decisions. The tempo of music in your supermarket, the scent they deploy through HVAC defusers at clothing stores, the layout of furniture stores, the color of the walls. All of these things are organized to affect your subconscious to ensure that you spend a higher percentage of money per year at that store, to transform window shoppers into repeat customers.

As a society, we are responsible for that. We allow these practices to continue even though they actively manipulate the consumer in a way that doesn't allow for informed choice.

The person who spends two hundred dollars on Hearthstone cards because the color and sound of the pack opening is explicitly designed to activate and engage pleasure in the subconscious is also being manipulated. If we agree that this is alright, then we are accepting that companies have the right to use signals that we're not even aware of to try and sell us more things.

I, for one, don't believe that it is acceptable for companies to use subliminal messaging to influence my decisions as a consumer. Even though our choices are affected by many subconscious signals from all areas of life, I still don't want Walmart to use those tools to make me buy more Oreos, and I think I have a moral obligation to make sure that Walmart isn't making other citizen who might not want to buy all those Oreos make bad decisions.

Part of living in a society is deciding to what extent we believe we are responsible for the well being of others, and multi-million dollar companies using psychology to encourage people to spend money in ways in which they cannot make an informed decision falls into my "I care" camp.

Click to shrink...

Are you joking in some parts of your reply?

So let's be clear about this, because I want to give you a chance to respond in case I'm misunderstanding --

If I'm a small business owner with some type of storefront, are you seriously implying that I should not be allowed to choose the background music I play in the store?? Or how the store is physically laid out? Or not being able to choose the wall paint color in my own store and building that I own???

(Needless to say, I'm heavily on the side of individual responsibility being the thing that matters. But let's take this discussion in small steps, so answer the above questions first.)

 

[Lactose_Intolerant]

I'm not personally complicit, as I don't play F2P games (I haven't yet found one where the game mechanics haven't been adversely affected by .

Click to shrink...

Path of exile and Dota 2

 

[DDayton]

It's scummy of companies to attempt to skim money off folks. Taking advantage of those with weak will power is even worse.

 

[Clawbvious]

Are you joking in some parts of your reply?

So let's be clear about this, because I want to give you a chance to respond in case I'm misunderstanding --

If I'm a small business owner with some type of storefront, are you seriously implying that I should not be allowed to choose the background music I play in the store?? Or how the store is physically laid out? Or not being able to choose the wall paint color in my own store and building that I own???

(Needless to say, I'm heavily on the side of individual responsibility being the thing that matters. But let's take this discussion in small steps, so answer the above questions first.)

Click to shrink...

I'm advocating for robust consumer protection from psychological manipulation. Obviously in order to have regulation, standards have to be established, ones that I doubt would include the color of everyone's wallpaper, but I suppose they could.

If your intent in picking music and the color of the walls is to manipulate the people who come into your store, then yes, I believe you should be held to some agreed upon standard of how much manipulation is considered acceptable.

Personal responsibility is a great thing, but we have regulations for a reason. People can eat all the lead they want in their own home, but there is a limit to how much lead is acceptable in food and water that's sold to people.

 

[Bhonar]

I'm advocating for robust consumer protection from psychological manipulation. Obviously in order to have regulation, standards have to be established, ones that I doubt would include the color of everyone's wallpaper, but I suppose they could.

If your intent in picking music and the color of the walls is to manipulate the people who come into your store, then yes, I believe you should be held to some agreed upon standard of how much manipulation is considered acceptable.

Personal responsibility is a great thing, but we have regulations for a reason. People can eat all the lead they want in their own home, but there is a limit to how much lead is acceptable in food and water that's sold to people.

Click to shrink...

Then we just have such a fundamental extreme difference in life philosophy, and that's all there is to it.

The lead example is completely not comparable, because you took it to serious extremes. Physical harming Customers is not the same thing as psychological marketing. Yes, I'm aware that I can not lace food with cyanide or ricin or anthrax.

I'm also aware that I am allowed to choose the music or wall color of my own store.

The only thing left to say is the law seems to be on my side, because for someone's own business store and building that they own, they are allowed to do the 3 questions I asked you. And as far as I'm aware, there's not even the faintest hint of question about that being changed by law.

 

[Clawbvious]

Then we just have such a fundamental extreme difference in life philosophy, and that's all there is to it.

The lead example is completely not comparable, because you took it to serious extremes. Physical harming Customers is not the same thing as psychological marketing. Yes, I'm aware that I can not lace food with cyanide or ricin or anthrax.

I'm also aware that I am allowed to choose the music or wall color of my own store.

The only thing left to say is the law seems to be on my side, because for someone's own business store and building that they own, they are allowed to do the 3 questions I asked you. And as far as I'm aware, there's not even the faintest hint of question about that being changed by law.

Click to shrink...

Well it seems pretty clear that we're not going to convince each other. So I think we can just leave it at that.