Comments on: How are Virtual Goods not a scam?

By: switch11

switch11 — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 00:29:37 +0000

Sean, agree with you.
A lot of it is preying on humain instincts devleped over generations. Companies just try to hide it under cute sounding names – virtual products sounds better than ‘getting people addicted and exploiting their addiction’.

Hope you have good luck getting your wife free of the addiction.

By: Sean

Sean — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 00:09:23 +0000

The addiction is not silly. My wife who suffers from depressions spent close to 100 in the last week on this crap. When I was out of the country for 2 weeks I checked my credit card afterward and it was 700! It is a mode of escapism for some. A book only costs $30 and entertains for hours. It can be reread or given away. Something digital last minutes and causes the person to want more and act irrational such as lying about purchasing, buying gift cards to hide use, etc. It’s just as dangerous as an addiction to gambling or do you think that sort of addiction is silly too?

By: switch11

switch11 — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 04:58:44 +0000

Really? Would you kindly point out what China being communist has to do with it.

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 04:40:49 +0000

You lose all credibility when you cite what communist China is doing.

By: Kat

Kat — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:26:57 +0000

Well, I used to be a game addict for a while, and the tendency is always there to just plug in…

But you know? Turns out, I actually have some self control — yes, even as a teenager, I managed to sober up. I don’t blame the evil game companies for hooking me any more than I blame the credit card companies for “making” me rack up debt, Twinkies for “making” people eat them and get fat, or Jim Beam for “making” people drink it. It’s a choice. We’re creatures capable of emotion, impulse, *and* logic.

Eating sweets is an evolutionary preference, too. When we were hunter-gatherers, it was advantageous to stuff our faces with sweet fruits and berries. But now, not so much. People still manage to stay relatively thin and healthy, *and* enjoy themselves occasionally, thanks to self control.

Just my opinion, but one “from the trenches” both as as ex-fat person and ex-game addict.

By: switch11

switch11 — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:23:17 +0000

Social games are not entertainment at the point that people start hurting their lives instead of simply getting a break.

The addiction argument is not at all silly.

If you were to take any mix of good influence, persuasion, psychology books (or research papers) you would find that most social games on facebook use some core principles very, very well.

we’re talking social proof, committment, social hierarchy, hunter-gatherer mentality, slot machine randomness, pavlov’s experiment, etc.

it’s some of the brightest minds and some of the most unethical people (not necessarily the same group) coming together to create products that really play on human psychology.

pit that expertise against a normal person who doesn’t even understand basic stuff and it’s rather unfair.

By: Adam S

Adam S — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:01:54 +0000

Couldn’t the same thing be said of any entertainment. Books, there is no real value in books, once you take away the paper, it is just a virtual good and you waste all kinds of time with them. What about movies you spend $20 or 30 to go sit in a dark room and waste time living other people’s stories. Or TV, did you know over 80% of the people in the US actually pay for TV when they could get it free.

The addiction argument is just silly. People do things because they want to. Is it theoretically possible for people to be addicted to the internet or virtual goods. Yes, but to ban anything that isn’t tangible doesn’t deal with that. By your argument people could become addicted to many things (fast food, cars, books, video games) but we wouldn’t ban those.