Decline The future-present of personalization, fake randomness, and games as a service

[d1r]

Imagine actually bothering with mobile games.

Yeah, but the problem is that normies don't care. They gladly look at 30 sec ads just to get another extra life in Candy Crush.

 

[agentorange]

The only thing surprising in this thread is that it is dated current year and people are acting like it is new information.

Board game world has a similar problem. Many things should be legally required to be labeled "activities", not games.

Should really be called gambling at this point, but yeah activity is also appropriate, gambling activity. It's very insidious when you look into how the various minutiae of these games is specifically designed to be addictive. Like how when you unpack a "loot" bag in these games, you don't just get the stuff instantly, it has this waiting time to build anticipation, then a very satisfying sound and an elaborate animation plays. Someone I know plays a ton of that Fate Grand Order mobile game and had me unpack one of their in-game card packs, and it even has this elaborate little unpacking animation where you draw your finger along the bag to open the zipper, plays a sound, opens up with a bunch of flash effects, etc.

 

[Fedora Master]

Imagine actually bothering with mobile games.

Yeah, but the problem is that normies don't care. They gladly look at 30 sec ads just to get another extra life in Candy Crush.

Normies would rather sit through multiple ads than install an adblocker. Frankly I have no idea why companies are so upset about ad blocking, clearly only a minority even bothers with it.

 

[catfood]

The vast majority of the people who use the internet aren't even aware of the fact that tools such as adblockers even exist.

 

[Atrachasis]

[...]
In some cases, personalization can reach a point where 2 players from the same country have very different $ price points for the same in-game offer, solely because the game knows that player B is willing to spend more. And legally, nothing forbid companies from doing it.
[...]

Hm, not quite true. Profiling and automated decision-making are, at least in the EU, regulated by the GDPR. The company would at the very least have to divulge the existence of such algorithms to the customer and obtain explicit consent (as well as provide information upon request about all the personal data it has stored about the customer), or expose itself to the risk of an investigation and fine from the supervisory authorities.

Art. 13 (2): In addition to the information referred to in paragraph 1, the controller shall, at the time when personal data are obtained, provide the data subject with the following further information necessary to ensure fair and transparent processing: [...] the existence of automated decision-making, including profiling, referred to in Article 22(1) and (4) and, at least in those cases, meaningful information about the logic involved, as well as the significance and the envisaged consequences of such processing for the data subject.

Art. 22: The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her.