Pocket elves on the river

[Cult of Jared]

California's 'no violent video games for minors' law hit the supreme court. The court is very free speech oriented, going 8-1 in favor of animal cruelty videos, so the law will probably be shot down. I can't say I ever saw what the big deal was, from either side of the issue.

If I were an overzealous politician, I would be starting moral panics over gambling in games. World of Warcraft's unstopability is partially due to its good implementation of gambling mechanics. I've heard tales of foreign MMO's which take gambling to the logical extreme: allowing one lever pull per microtransaction, no caveats. Even the latest Team Fortress update has you finding crates, which you can pay to unlock. "You have earned an opportunity to gamble! Get excited!" And with the advent of Chinese gold farmers, all the above rewards have cash value.

Should we be worried? Where does compelling game design end and exploitation begin? When can we expect laws concerning gaming-gambling. What should they disallow?

PS: This post might be flamebait. Hard to tell before people react to it. Schrödinger's flamebait. If the cat is dead, I'm sorry.

[Roderick]

I think it's a pretty valid concern, especially with social games and MMOs pushing the boundaries of 'exploitation'. Part of this will be inevitable: a lot of these games have a 'freemium' model and to generate revenue for the company there simply has to be some model for micro-transactions in preferably as diverse a way as possible.

The line between offering free (or non-gambling) gameplay versus models to get a cashflow running is a delicate one. I don't know where the balance point is. I guess it all depends on when people start getting the feeling they're being exploited, and then go just below that.