[MUD-Dev] Retention without Addiction?

[Matt Mihaly]

On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 Daniel.Harman at barclayscapital.com wrote:
> Matt Mihaly wrote :
 
>> Yes, I agree, people shouldn't drink and drive, or build cars
>> that explode when rear-ended. I disagree that game developers
>> shouldn't make games that encourage habitual play, just as I
>> would disagree that food makers shouldn't make tasty food that
>> encourages us to eat more, or that ski slope operators should
>> somehow make skiing less fun, so that people will not do it
>> habitually.
 
> The difference between these games versus food, skiing and etc is
> that they all have external constraints that discourage/limit
> people from compulsive and destructive behaviour. There is a
> finite limit to how much food I can eat. There's a finite limit to
> how much skiing I can do in a day (fatigue, lifts closing and
> darkness on the short term - cost on the broader term).  However,
> there doesn't seem to be much appart from discipline stopping
> people playing online games obsessively. Its remarkably easy not
> get out of a chair for 12 hours.

That is the player's decision, for which I accept no moral
responsibility whatsoever. I don't care if he or she is
obsessed. His or her choice. Of course, if I was making a
subscription game, I'd do my best to ensure people don't play 12
hours a day, as it's expensive for the company.
 
> Given that people apparently need these limits to maintain
> sensible balance, I feel there is a strong case for engineering
> them into the game. I don't even think people need to be
> exceptionally flawed to become overly consumed by these games. The
> article posted on another thread by the lady becoming addicted to
> AO (of all things!) seems to illustrate this. Humans just seems to
> be engineered for compulsive behaviour, naively exploiting this is
> liable to get the industry bitten on the arse.

Yes, as I've already posted multiple times, the practical arguments
are valid. Accepting the need to do something due to fear of
government thugs is not the same as accepting the need to do
something out of some mis-placed feeling of guilt or moral
culpability.
 
>> In my worldview, that makes the player entirely morally
>> responsible for the effects he or she experiences while playing
>> the game. I feel the same about cigarettes, drugs of any sort,
>> etc.
 
> Whilst I'm inclined to disagree with you, its largely irrelevant
> what our viewpoints are. The majority of the Western World doesn't
> agree. Its alarmingly easy to make comparisons between online
> games and drugs. People already do and you aren't going to change
> their minds.

They're wrong. They may have the power to force me to change
(unlikely however, as I'm in a position to simply move my business
outside the US once the assheads like Joe Lieberman start
legislating), but that doesn't make them right. That's all I'm
saying. In my moral framework, there is no room for blaming a game
designer, a drug dealer, or anyone else simply because the person
who purchases a service or product uses it in a self-destructive
manner.
 
> I can't see your point here. People pay to play games, just as you
> pay to use the roads. You could argue that there isn't a viable
> alternative to driving (at least in the States), but people claim
> the same of online game x which they enjoy, but find overly
> compulsive, whilst hating games y & z.  i.e. They want to play an
> online game, and game x is the only viable option (in their
> opinion).

I know people who don't drive, so there are viable alternatives to
driving. They still have a right to drive, though, insofar as
they're taxes are helping pay for the infrastructure. You don't
really have a choice about whether to pay for roads. You certainly
do in terms of games, and I feel no sympathy whatsoever for some
spoiled westerner with so much leisure time on his or her hands that
he or she screws his life up while idling away the hours of his or
her comfy life. I've certainly made some really stupid decisions in
my life, including allowing my grades to deteriorate in university
due to playing MUDs constantly. My decision though, and entirely my
fault. I find it a little insulting that you would not permit me to
be self-responsible by claiming that somehow other people are to
blame for my decision to play MUDs. Similarly, I probably drink more
wine that is good for me, and I know I eat more carbs than are good
for someone with a family history of diabetes. Whose fault is it if
I continue to consume the tasty chocolate, pasta, breads, and so on,
develop diabetes, and die a horrible death? Mine, and only mine.
 
>>> I'm not saying that developers should be held accountable for
>>> the actions or choices of addicted players, only that they
>>> should be held accountable for their own choices in deciding to
>>> create an addictive game, because I believe such choices can
>>> *contribute* to the harmful results that addictive behavior can
>>> bring.
  
>> Yes, they can contribute. That doesn't equal moral blame to me.

> Moral blame isn't this concrete, black and white, 1-to-1
> relationship. If something contributes to a problem, then surely
> it shares blame?

The sun contributes. Does it share moral blame? Chances are you are
contributing to all sorts of ills, merely by existing. Butterly
beating its wings in Tokyo causes a storm in California, etc, if you
take my point. Is the butterfly responsible for causing this storm
in California, which killed many many people? How about me, walking
about disturbing the air in California and causing a storm in Tokyo
(or rather, contributing to causing it), which kills numerous
people. Do I share moral blame for the weather, which I and every
other thing on earth contributes to, to some small extent or
another? No? Too small a contribution? Where's the line then? What's
the rationale for how big your contribution has to be to cause moral
culpability?

Does it come down to intent? If so, I don't see how you can hold me,
the game designer, responsible, as I have no intention of causing
harmful behavior in my players. If it happens, it happens, much like
the butterfly effect. I realize this example seems a little extreme,
but the principle is identical.
 
> Just looking at the time I spent playing Everquest, I think online
> game addiction is probably a wider problem than currently
> acknowledged. The number of people I knew who regularly played >7
> hours a day was incredible.  They haven't all lost their jobs etc,
> but I can't see a case for it being healthy.

It probably isn't healthy. They should change their behavior if it
concerns them. If it doesn't, I don't see why it should concern me.
 
> In the end I hope its somewhat academic as to whether developers
> buy in to making games less compulsive. Lots of people quit these
> games because they no longer wish to make the commitments they
> feel these games require, and they won't buy another until they
> find one that doesn't make similar demands. If one isn't
> available, then the industry just lost a customer.  Market forces
> should do the rest.

Yes, I agree that it is largely academic, as all moral issues
are. Affecting reality is about power, and as a couple others have
pointed out, game developers don't have much of it.

As for market forces, however, it's not an issue for me
currently. Achaea is explicitly attempting to be a virtual world
that people can live their lives in, not just adventure in for an
hour a day, and that's been my strategy since the start. It's done
nothing but grow over the last 5+ years. A world our size just
doesn't need that many customers to support itself, and there are
plenty of them out there.

--matt


_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev