Yes, that is a good idea around what I am thinking in regards to the “magic addictive formula”

They have a system in play that optimises the play experience in a way that is rewarding to “addictive habits” and attempts to “encourage” a habit that leans towards an addiction.

Thank you, it seems the scope of the thought was a lot more open-ended than I imagined.

Was thinking in the line of the how the big game companies seem to try to hook people onto their game experiences and when one hits it big, how they attempt to moderate that experience around trying to keep it at a level that is akin to selling cigarettes.

It is like they are trying to find that “magic addictive formula” and try to be the sole provider of that experience to keep a person coming back to them.

That sounds depressing, it is like they commoditised cheat codes. Sad to see it fall into the trappings that the game makes fun of. I can almost imagine what the GTA 6 version might become if they decide to intergrate that level of “hooks” into its shiny game environment.

I think that was the 2K launcher, if I recall, I remember they were doing something with their games (was playing XCOM 2 at the time) and promptly made use of a workaround

Didn’t like the extra steps just to get into a game - like they were reminding you that you only pay for the license to play the game and the property is theirs to do with as they please. I mean, it is, but still doesn’t help feeling like I am being constantly reminded.

That is probably one of the more famous examples, yeah. They pivoted resources from the single player experience once they saw how much money they were making with their shark cards (I believe it was called). Developed an ecosystem that encouraged spending money to enjoy the game (but not forced) and I guess it was an equivalent experience of getting players to “micro-dose” with a payment to bypass elements of grind to get the best stuff and have an overall smoother experience.

Yeah, they are more apt comparisons where the target market is built upon consistent small (or large) payments that are in a business’ best interests - like in-game currencies (chips in gambling sense) are used to obfuscate the value of what a player is spending money on (which falls into one of the many psychological tricks you mentioned)

Streaming platforms and movies are similar - yes but for them it is a one time recurring cost for the service or in a movie’s case it is a pay per experience.

With game pass, for example, you can play games like streaming, but it won’t be the full experience for some games (i.e the dlc and additional content) - and to be fair, it does usually come at a discount but there in lies additional costs per experience

It is like the equivalent of paying for a streaming service and then it asks and double dips, saying “hey, we see you really liked that show - want to pay us 5 more bucks to enjoy more of it” or a movie and where they ask you to spend more to see the extra deleted scenes

Games are in an area where one can both pay per experience and pay for the service and it is understandable in some cases why that can be - however there are games now that are intended for pay for experience (single player for example) that have additional costs attached to them to draw more “easy” money (this can be the case of developing something worse on purpose to offer a simpler way out of it) or you have games that are nearly the same every year (with them chopping and changing features to make it seem “fresh and new”) and then leverage on a FOMO (mobile games are far worse in this regard) to “encourage” one to spend more on the original purchase.

The effort to manipulate and try to make more with less, feels more erroneous in the gaming sphere

They are trying to get people to become “addicted” to an experience and they wish to target either those that can afford it (and for them - power to them) and/or those that cannot but are unable to control their desire for more (worst case scenario - they hook a proverbial “junkie”)

I will be say I wasn’t thinking too hard into it but, (and not direct response more how a lot of the bad elements feel like they are being pushed)

• Was thinking how the idea of games-as-a-service and subscriptions are considered a priority
• how samey a lot of AAA games seems to feel (like it is consoldated on a “formula”)
• a desire to manipulate towards the idea to spend more on the original product
• supply enough of a product to get a player invested and once hooked - try to maintain that investment over a period of time
• the product is seldom as good as advertised
• the quality of the product, in general, feels like it is being degraded in an effort to more easily manipulate
• games are seen as something as means to an end - and in that vein, it is targeted to be able to draw in people according to metrics and less a expression of creativity

By and large - yes, the idea can be applied to capitalism and I think the idea I was thinking of is that AAA games lean into the more exploitative area of it.

Doesn’t mean it is the only one or even the worst, but I was thinking in the headspace at how the “big games companies” are trying to lean into being more manipulative (directly or subversively) and how it feels more like “drug dealers” trying to sell their brand of high, trying to dictate how to enjoy those highs, they try to lock players into a “brand” of gaming and once they can “control” what people will enjoy, attempt to exploit value from it.

That is true, it did popularise the drive towards extracting large amounts of value for comparatively little effort

Meanwhile Microsoft doing back-room deals to corner more of the market

That is not really fair, Raiden can do that because he must have special robotic-assisted magnets in his feet and legs.

I too would like learn where people can learn wrong art of the power of psychokinesis or have the wrist strength to be able to balance 3 longswords in the palm of one’s hand

Joking aside, good form makes the blade effective, even more than the danger the blade presents itself

You beat me to it, and I was already in 196, so I had to follow the rule

I guess we know why Anthony was in “de-Nile”

Tldr:

Having too many cultures that have not established a “market share” in politics makes the, people who run a country, job harder as it has to contend with dealing with the potential of new cultures forming and the inevitable culture clashes that follow as differing values and ideals will demand different things.

It fractures and dilutes points of control which encourages politics to try ensure loyalty though aligning itself with views of the majority.

End tldr

Unironically, Stellaris is probably a decent example of the thought experiment played out. Unless a species is built with ideals of the intergration and/or has its proper foundation set then it can quickly spiral out of hand as you have to deal with " a hunded voices asking for one thing".

It is far easier to control and secure a foundational majority based off of one species as it can be more easily guided towards an established outcome.

Adding too many “outsiders” has the potential to cause an imbalance and a shift in thinking which then requires a new paradigm to “herd the sheep” as it were, while still trying to maintain a standard that the base species has become accustomed to.

If it not carefully controlled, it can potentially lead to a fracturing of opinion and thoughts which is a lot harder to manage and “guide” as one runs the risk of isolating one group and in doing so opening up the potential cascade of problems if the ignored minorities builds up steam which then forces leaders to contend with trying to figure out a way to maintain control over the many species bases while still doing it in a way that causes the least amount of disruption to their control.

Hey now, don’t be giving goldfish a bad name now - some have good memory capacity

https://www.livescience.com/goldfish-memory.html

Nothing more to say, just wanting to stand up for goldfish is all.

I agree on a lot of points, although it seems I have a more pacifist outlook while you have a more active outlook which if I am honest does more for progress.

I see freedom of speech - in the general sense - as a means to be able to express yourself and your opinions and I feel that if people could express that without outright spreading a feeling of hatred and rage then I feel pretty much anything goes within reason. As even innocuous well meaning ideas can lead to dangerous outcomes.

That doesn’t mean people should expect the status quo, but sometimes I look at chimps and their “gang wars” and think we aren’t that much different sometimes.

For reference: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War

We are primed to respond most strongly with hatred and rage… perhaps some deep primitive instinct and that gets taken advantage of.

Humans nature seems to be a violent one and if I look at history it is unfortunately violence that seems to be the most effective means to get through our thick human psyche to advance. Ancient Egypt, Alexander’s Legacy, Rome’s rise and fall, The Crusades, French Revolution, British Empire, American Independence, The World Wars.

We are forever doomed to repeat history it seems until history can no longer repeat

It is like humanity must experience great suffering and that suffering must reach a tipping point before we as a collective species change

What the next big tipping point will be that forces a change, if we last that long, I don’t know as well

I for one look forward to day that we are all free from the Patriot’s grasp

I agree, kinda of sad that pieces of fake paper and ego is a more valuable commodity for those are lost to it than seeing others as a human being

The foundation of the world’s economy

Okay an example if I must provide one

I feel according to brief look at American constitution in spirit if the Founding Fathers that governement should be neutral in religious matters and people have the freedom of religious choice without being discriminated against while still in the spirit of freedom and comradie not resort some sort of cannibal death cult.

The people have the freedom of choice, however the government must not be swayed and run by one motivating group or factor in the spirit of the writing how the British wished to exert their power and influence to control the then original 13 states

I also feel that again in spirit of what they wrote something like abortions shouldn’t be banned unless there was some catastrophic failure rate where government must intervene to prevent people from commiting suicide by doing so.

I am going to get flak by writing it but I believe that abortion can be made a case when it is ill advised at a certain point or if the if the parents decide that a birth is too dangerous, to be able to abort at a late stage.

By my limited understanding is that if doctors want to choose not to abort then are then in their right to do so if it is not life threatening. The government should not interfere but instead make it clear that individual practioners are under no obligation to help you if they strongly believe they don’t believe in it and within reasonable circumstance and that those that do wish to go with it should be given the option to instead of shutting them down.

But ultimately it should be the individuals choice to choose even if it is a bad choice and the unfortunate burden of guilt should be shouldered on an individual. I feel that is the freedom that was intended