Stakes, the magic circle, fun, ethics, law, consent, and game design
October 3, 2023 6:26 PM Subscribe
Game designer James Ernest plays and makes games of many kinds, including tabletop games and casino/gambling games. In "Black Box Mechanics And the Ethics of Gambling in Games", published on January 12th, 2021, he writes, 'Are gambling games ethical at all? That's the root question here and of course the answer is complicated. In theory? Yes. In practice? Not always.....I often see folks in computer games decrying the use of “gambling mechanics” in games, but I think we need to be a little more specific.' I learned from his comparisons of laws, practices, and intuitions surrounding swimming pools and casinos, and "Context Part 2" on what's particularly pernicious about "black box mechanics [being] dicey outside of the casino," as well as his definition of an ethical payout.
Found via JHarris's post six months ago about James Ernest's site Crab Fragment Labs.
Found via JHarris's post six months ago about James Ernest's site Crab Fragment Labs.
Thanks for the shout-out! I distrust gambling games too, but if anyone's thought hard about them and their implications it's Ernest, who's outright sold a variant of poker to casinos for play.
He talks about the money that players don't get back as paying for entertainment, the fun of playing. That makes sense, but I observe that this entertainment value contributes to the addictiveness of gambling, that makes it harder for some players to quit. As someone who's played a lot of video games, I can vouch that addictiveness can happen even when there's no monetary return to the player at all, and for some people it's even life-damaging. Long ago a friend told me that he dropped out of college basically because of Asteroids. I presume that Asteroids was really just a mask over other causes, but I'd still say the game was a contributing factor.
Anyway. In Ernest's article, he identifies the "magic circle," the pretend realm of the game where you decide to try to win even though it's meaningless in the real world, that introducing real money purposely breaks the circle, and that some players, at one extreme of the continuum, that breakage destroys the game utterly.
Well, I am one of those players. I cannot enjoy a game played for real stakes. A big part of that is my financial situation: I can't risk even a dollar on a game, because I know it's valuable, that it's taking away from useful things I could do with that dollar. If I were more well-to-do, would my feelings be different? Perhaps, but it's not, and they're not. Because I know that gambling can be addictive, I must choose to have not even the slightest bit of risk that I will be addicted, I know of too many people in a similar situation who have destroyed their lives that way.
In a sense, it's just another way that the world sucks for poor people.
posted by JHarris at 9:49 PM on October 3, 2023 [8 favorites]
He talks about the money that players don't get back as paying for entertainment, the fun of playing. That makes sense, but I observe that this entertainment value contributes to the addictiveness of gambling, that makes it harder for some players to quit. As someone who's played a lot of video games, I can vouch that addictiveness can happen even when there's no monetary return to the player at all, and for some people it's even life-damaging. Long ago a friend told me that he dropped out of college basically because of Asteroids. I presume that Asteroids was really just a mask over other causes, but I'd still say the game was a contributing factor.
Anyway. In Ernest's article, he identifies the "magic circle," the pretend realm of the game where you decide to try to win even though it's meaningless in the real world, that introducing real money purposely breaks the circle, and that some players, at one extreme of the continuum, that breakage destroys the game utterly.
Well, I am one of those players. I cannot enjoy a game played for real stakes. A big part of that is my financial situation: I can't risk even a dollar on a game, because I know it's valuable, that it's taking away from useful things I could do with that dollar. If I were more well-to-do, would my feelings be different? Perhaps, but it's not, and they're not. Because I know that gambling can be addictive, I must choose to have not even the slightest bit of risk that I will be addicted, I know of too many people in a similar situation who have destroyed their lives that way.
In a sense, it's just another way that the world sucks for poor people.
posted by JHarris at 9:49 PM on October 3, 2023 [8 favorites]
Real money gambling is one of those things where you have to put so many qualifications in front of any answer to "can it be good?" that the discussion rapidly spirals into much wider psychological and societal issues. I don't think this piece, heavy on game theory and design, really does that.
For example, I imagine most people agree that transparency about odds is crucial, but it's hardly sufficient; if the information is hidden and punters are bombarded with advertising showing that gambling is fun and social and a way to get rich, or they're badgered by "concierges" with treats and prizes to keep gambling, it doesn't really make that much difference.
We probably all know people like the author's grandfather who appeared able to gamble responsibly. But I know too many people who ruined their lives and their relationships with real money gambling, even with the odds properly disclosed. Gambling is not like swimming: casinos and slot machines are literally designed to engender addiction, as Natasha Dow Schüll’s Addiction by Design demonstrated.
posted by adrianhon at 2:30 AM on October 4, 2023 [3 favorites]
For example, I imagine most people agree that transparency about odds is crucial, but it's hardly sufficient; if the information is hidden and punters are bombarded with advertising showing that gambling is fun and social and a way to get rich, or they're badgered by "concierges" with treats and prizes to keep gambling, it doesn't really make that much difference.
We probably all know people like the author's grandfather who appeared able to gamble responsibly. But I know too many people who ruined their lives and their relationships with real money gambling, even with the odds properly disclosed. Gambling is not like swimming: casinos and slot machines are literally designed to engender addiction, as Natasha Dow Schüll’s Addiction by Design demonstrated.
posted by adrianhon at 2:30 AM on October 4, 2023 [3 favorites]
Sorry, rather than "if the information [about odds] is hidden" I meant "if it's in small print/hard to find..."
posted by adrianhon at 2:37 AM on October 4, 2023
posted by adrianhon at 2:37 AM on October 4, 2023
My general feeling is that ethical gambling must be limited in either time or space. That is, it needs to be restricted to a relatively small number of at least somewhat inconvenient spaces, the rate at which new rounds of a game must be very limited, or some combination of the two strategies must be employed. The idea here being that less access and less repetition reduces or at least slows the onset of addiction.
Video game gambling rarely has any limit whatsoever. Indeed, the makers of the games are acutely aware that the vast majority of their earnings are the result of a small number of whales. They know damn well that, if they aren't themselves the cause of some specific player's addiction that they are very much taking advantage of the player's condition. That is unethical in and of itself, but beyond that they can be accessed any time and anywhere and players can "draw" pretty much as frequently as they like. They are intended to induce addictive behaviors.
For that reason, the attractive nuisance model falls apart. It's not a swimming pool with a fence. It's not even a swimming pool without a fence. It's a nice looking swimming pool that has billboards posted all around saying "come on in, the water's fine" but is actually filled with camouflaged sharks bred to have a taste for human flesh.
posted by wierdo at 3:07 AM on October 4, 2023 [3 favorites]
Video game gambling rarely has any limit whatsoever. Indeed, the makers of the games are acutely aware that the vast majority of their earnings are the result of a small number of whales. They know damn well that, if they aren't themselves the cause of some specific player's addiction that they are very much taking advantage of the player's condition. That is unethical in and of itself, but beyond that they can be accessed any time and anywhere and players can "draw" pretty much as frequently as they like. They are intended to induce addictive behaviors.
For that reason, the attractive nuisance model falls apart. It's not a swimming pool with a fence. It's not even a swimming pool without a fence. It's a nice looking swimming pool that has billboards posted all around saying "come on in, the water's fine" but is actually filled with camouflaged sharks bred to have a taste for human flesh.
posted by wierdo at 3:07 AM on October 4, 2023 [3 favorites]
Yeah, the magic circle articulates a great concept I've often thought about. This was quite clear in Diablo 3 at launch versus World of Warcraft. In World of Warcraft, the best items in the game were bind-on-pickup, meaning you couldn't trade them. This severely limited the economy of the game, but it was for the best - you're not supposed to think about finances and how poor you are and the crushing boot of inequality... you're just supposed to have fun! Get together, play raids together, conquer the forces of evil.
In Diablo 3 at launch though, they tried to create An Economy. Everything became monetized. If you beat the boss and looted a great item that your friend could use, there was no actual reason to give it to him. You could just sell it on the market for gold, send him the gold, and he could buy an item with the exact stats he needed rather than settling for the random stats you found. It got even worse when the real money auction house opened. I had a good sword, but would I really give it to my friend when I could sell it for $100 on the market? It wasn't a grimdark fantasy RPG anymore, it was just a slot machine where you received an arbitrary number of cents (or dollars if you were lucky) whenever you looted a boss or opened a chest. It was awful, I pretty much quit and sold half my items for about $250 and gave the rest away to my friends, who didn't quite know how to receive my gift. Was I really giving them a $20 amulet? What does this even mean?
This is a "I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate" moment, but I've had real life friends spend thousands on gacha games. I've had an online friend playing for my team spend the maximum in Steam ($1000 per day before they cut you off) and on the 7th day, they cut off his account completely ($7000 spent) and sent him a polite email saying they no longer want to do business with him but of course he can keep his account and anything he has purchased.
video game loot boxes and the act of opening them exist inside a completely opaque & unregulated machine controlled entirely by the house
China heavily regulates these types of games. They need to be transparent about the probabilities (and there are many sites that keep tabs on player pulls) and they've also banned pure probability boxes. For example, you could theoretically pull an infinite number of boxes without hitting the rare 0.5% drop. Those are banned, now all boxes must have an increasing probability function with a guaranteed chance of obtaining the rarest item after X number of pulls. This effectively puts a maximum price on any particular drop you want, with a substantial probability that you get it earlier. Basically "this digital thing costs $100, but we might give you a discount" at random.
There's also significant regulation in Europe about the transparency of outcomes, and with some jurisdictions like Belgium banning loot boxes entirely.
posted by xdvesper at 4:04 AM on October 4, 2023 [4 favorites]
In Diablo 3 at launch though, they tried to create An Economy. Everything became monetized. If you beat the boss and looted a great item that your friend could use, there was no actual reason to give it to him. You could just sell it on the market for gold, send him the gold, and he could buy an item with the exact stats he needed rather than settling for the random stats you found. It got even worse when the real money auction house opened. I had a good sword, but would I really give it to my friend when I could sell it for $100 on the market? It wasn't a grimdark fantasy RPG anymore, it was just a slot machine where you received an arbitrary number of cents (or dollars if you were lucky) whenever you looted a boss or opened a chest. It was awful, I pretty much quit and sold half my items for about $250 and gave the rest away to my friends, who didn't quite know how to receive my gift. Was I really giving them a $20 amulet? What does this even mean?
This is a "I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate" moment, but I've had real life friends spend thousands on gacha games. I've had an online friend playing for my team spend the maximum in Steam ($1000 per day before they cut you off) and on the 7th day, they cut off his account completely ($7000 spent) and sent him a polite email saying they no longer want to do business with him but of course he can keep his account and anything he has purchased.
video game loot boxes and the act of opening them exist inside a completely opaque & unregulated machine controlled entirely by the house
China heavily regulates these types of games. They need to be transparent about the probabilities (and there are many sites that keep tabs on player pulls) and they've also banned pure probability boxes. For example, you could theoretically pull an infinite number of boxes without hitting the rare 0.5% drop. Those are banned, now all boxes must have an increasing probability function with a guaranteed chance of obtaining the rarest item after X number of pulls. This effectively puts a maximum price on any particular drop you want, with a substantial probability that you get it earlier. Basically "this digital thing costs $100, but we might give you a discount" at random.
There's also significant regulation in Europe about the transparency of outcomes, and with some jurisdictions like Belgium banning loot boxes entirely.
posted by xdvesper at 4:04 AM on October 4, 2023 [4 favorites]
This discussion right here, this is why I still think Metafilter is one of the best sites on the internet, despite some drama sometimes. What a nice post, and what great comments! (Not counting mine in that of course.) I love this place.
posted by JHarris at 5:02 AM on October 4, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by JHarris at 5:02 AM on October 4, 2023 [3 favorites]
Thanks JHarris, this is also why I'm still here after all these years, your posts are great too =P
To elaborate a bit more on my train of thought - the fact that loot box type games were so popular in China, that the authoritarian government there had to regulate them so tightly, it's resulted in games with global launches conforming to Chinese regulations. Most notably, Genshin Impact (2020) launched globally after the rule changes in 2019, which resulted in a much more consumer friendly lootbox system.
This is a "race to top" situation - the opposite of race to the bottom. In a race to the top, regulations imposed by one influential region positively affects the rest of the world. The analogy impacts my field of work, in the automotive industry, where European Union regulations on emissions (Euro6) or safety (NCAP) has cascaded throughout the world. In safety, Euro NCAP started out in 1997 measuring the overall safety the car considering the injuries sustained by both the driver and pedestrians on the road. These regulations have since cascaded to the rest of the world (China NCAP, ASEAN NCAP, Australia NCAP, Latin America NCAP). However, the USA continues to stick with their own safety regime with puts zero weight on pedestrian injury outcomes, which is how you end up with something with the Cybertruck....
posted by xdvesper at 5:37 AM on October 4, 2023 [3 favorites]
To elaborate a bit more on my train of thought - the fact that loot box type games were so popular in China, that the authoritarian government there had to regulate them so tightly, it's resulted in games with global launches conforming to Chinese regulations. Most notably, Genshin Impact (2020) launched globally after the rule changes in 2019, which resulted in a much more consumer friendly lootbox system.
This is a "race to top" situation - the opposite of race to the bottom. In a race to the top, regulations imposed by one influential region positively affects the rest of the world. The analogy impacts my field of work, in the automotive industry, where European Union regulations on emissions (Euro6) or safety (NCAP) has cascaded throughout the world. In safety, Euro NCAP started out in 1997 measuring the overall safety the car considering the injuries sustained by both the driver and pedestrians on the road. These regulations have since cascaded to the rest of the world (China NCAP, ASEAN NCAP, Australia NCAP, Latin America NCAP). However, the USA continues to stick with their own safety regime with puts zero weight on pedestrian injury outcomes, which is how you end up with something with the Cybertruck....
posted by xdvesper at 5:37 AM on October 4, 2023 [3 favorites]
Well, I am one of those players. I cannot enjoy a game played for real stakes.
I got an A in Discrete Probability, so I am unable to suspend my disbelief that "The House Always Wins" for long enough to enjoy gambling long enough for it to become a "how many dollars per hour does this entertainment cost?" (vs a movie, about $15/hour or concert, about $30-$40/hour).
posted by mikelieman at 7:53 AM on October 4, 2023 [3 favorites]
I got an A in Discrete Probability, so I am unable to suspend my disbelief that "The House Always Wins" for long enough to enjoy gambling long enough for it to become a "how many dollars per hour does this entertainment cost?" (vs a movie, about $15/hour or concert, about $30-$40/hour).
posted by mikelieman at 7:53 AM on October 4, 2023 [3 favorites]
"how many dollars per hour does this entertainment cost?"
But, here's an interesting thing. Casinos are broadly renowned for their opulance.
Glamourous surroundings and a veneer of luxury are what a casino wants to show you.
But the obvious question is, where does all the glamour and glitz come from, and the answer is, of course, it comes from losers.
The more the players lose the shiny and showier the casino can be.
The image is supposed to sell the idea that you too are in this circle of wealth. You're totally included in it, and that next hand of cards or throw of the dice will make it true. Except that the greater the show of wealth in the casino, the less likely that is to be true. There's some kind of directly inverse relationship between the show and the truth.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 2:40 PM on October 4, 2023 [1 favorite]
But, here's an interesting thing. Casinos are broadly renowned for their opulance.
Glamourous surroundings and a veneer of luxury are what a casino wants to show you.
But the obvious question is, where does all the glamour and glitz come from, and the answer is, of course, it comes from losers.
The more the players lose the shiny and showier the casino can be.
The image is supposed to sell the idea that you too are in this circle of wealth. You're totally included in it, and that next hand of cards or throw of the dice will make it true. Except that the greater the show of wealth in the casino, the less likely that is to be true. There's some kind of directly inverse relationship between the show and the truth.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 2:40 PM on October 4, 2023 [1 favorite]
« Older Arguably the funniest McCarthyist purge in US... | Echidnas recorded communicating for the first time Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by mhoye at 6:55 PM on October 3, 2023 [3 favorites]