As an avid gamer and Pillar reader (in a good way!) I greatly appreciate the interview with Mr. Floyd. He did a great job detailing the design philosophy behind free-to-play games and how they differ from other games. Less thorough publications would look at Fr. Kozak, say "video games bad" and move on, but the interview makes clear that things are much more nuanced. For what it's worth, a lot of gamers have moral objections to this sort of game design, regardless of religion. (We're also convinced that there's just better games to play.)
On the other hand, you needn't necessarily worry if your spouse or mom or whoever plays Candy Crush from time to time. As Mr. Floyd explained, the vast majority of players never pay anything, and even fewer become the whales that support these games.
Agreed - I also play my fair share of video games, though I read more about the industry than I play these days with two little kids, and this is a very good article about this for people who otherwise know little about the game industry and F2P games in particular. People who play games as one of their primary hobbies are often strongly antagonistic to these kinds of models, but younger and more casual gamers, as well as the "whales" that this article talks about make these kinds of models wildly successful for some companies, so this practice is never going away. I will note however that for every Candy Crush there are a dozen other F2P games put out by various companies that fail badly, so not every game like this is a cash cow, and some fail so badly that entire studios are closed because of it.
I also don't foresee any kind of regulation clamping down on these kinds of practices, at least in the U.S. There have been talks about regulating some aspects of microtransactions in the EU, particularly loot boxes (which are more like gambling than the types of purchases discussed in this article), but I haven't heard of those efforts going anywhere, for now at least.
I think this gets at an interesting issue—you or I might dislike free-to-play games because they feel exploitative or disrespectful of our time, especially when there's more mechanically or narratively interesting games out there that don't artificially gate you from playing to needle you into purchasing credits to continue. On the other hand, my grandmother doesn't feel any exploitation, as she just plays it for a little bit then moves on with her day. It's a weird case where, on the face of it, the practice is exploitative, but most people who play those games don't feel the exploitation.
Yep - totally agree. We're just not the intended audience for these kinds of games, or at least the primary audience. I personally would rather spend my money on a game with an engaging story, fleshed out characters, etc. Though I do play a wide variety of games even without these aspects, but I avoid F2P games altogether. It also helps that there are more options than ever these days to get high-quality, full games at relatively cheap prices if you're not picky about playing new releases and are willing to wait for sales and deep discounts that pop up all the time. For someone like me that's more than enough to keep me occupied during my limited free time these days.
Yay for crowdsourcing quality input! Pillar readers without exception provide quality input on so many avenues of inquiry.
I’d add too that it’s not a coincidence that Father in question here developed impulse control problems *after* a severe head trauma. It was a question of what thing he’d get addicted to, not if, after a big injury like that. It could have been any number of things, and his guardian angel worked overtime to make sure it wasn’t porn or opiates or booze, or other illegal substances when it so easily could have been.
I quit playing candy crush and their ilk (occasional player) because they started looking more and more like poker machines and Ive seen how devastating they are. Also, I grew up. That helped. I switched to paper crosswords, not the cryptic kind though. That nonsense just does my head in.
That was my thought too. This priest had some head trauma, then develops impulse control issues. It puts these games, social media, gambling apps etc.. in a much darker light. How many traumatized and/or mentally ill are exploited for money through these things? Not all of these are intended to exploited people necessarily, but they are often intentionally developed to be addicting. These companies know how destructive their products can be. I like the idea of warnings and restrictions on these just like additive substances have.
I do know that I had to put blocks everywhere so that my kids wouldn't purchase anything when playing these "free" games. They did ask more than once if they could, but they have now stopped, for now at least.
> I think it's a slow process, where they get you used to spending a couple bucks every few days or something like that, until you're spending $10 a week, and then $100 a week, because you've just gotten used to the idea that this is “worth” spending money on.
Grooming, essentially. Or we could view it as an exact parallel to the deadening of the conscience that we are taught happens gradually when a person commits very small venial sins because they are not a big deal, then commits deliberate venial sins because they are only venial, then commits grave sins because these too do not seem like a big deal now. I recently watched Nefarious (to report back to some folks who wanted to know whether it was the sort of horror movie they do not watch) and so the process is fresh in my mind ... from the perspective of the enemy there is a further step which the game companies do not have in their plan (since their goal is the wallet, not the soul; they are parasites, not apex predators), which is to confront the person with the fact that this is grave matter (like let's make sure this is deliberate) and convince him that he should continue to do it anyway (the last step would be either despair "I think I cannot be forgiven" or final impenitence "I do not want to be forgiven").
(It is "like" the deadening of the conscience because actually it *is* the deadening of the conscience, but we are used to thinking "this money that I don't 'need' is mine to do whatever I want with". I should reread St Basil's sermon to the rich, which I have a printout of because I need the reminder often.)
Sounds like a new chapter for Screwtape Letters--how to get kids/people hooked on video games, then slowly introduce morally worse things into the games...
Having studied the game industry for 20 years as an academic, I can say that media addiction is real (games but also social media, TV). You have to teach your kids how to say no. As a Catholic, I can say that you will have to hunt hard for game content that doesn’t trivialize religion. If your kids like games, get them into board games. Face to face. In D&D you can even make sure the missions are always good vs evil.
This is such an important issue -- not just the games but the whole psycho-ecosystem of the machine. Today Ted Gioia, on his Substack, "The Honest Broker, posted a very prescient commentary on the wider issues. It's behind a pay wall, but if you have access (or would like to pony up for a month), it's a great read.
He concludes: I’m tempted to make jokes about all this. And there is something amusing about people living in a make believe world, like they’ve found their own personal Narnia.
But the darker side of these technologies demand a serious response. They are already creating social havoc on a massive level—every mental illness and psychological metric of harm is on the rise. Meanwhile the techies who cause it keep using the word acceleration—it’s their favorite term right now.
The only thing that gives me comfort is the knowledge that we are smarter than mice. This would be a grand time to prove it.
I dabbled with video games years ago and, by the grace of God, quickly figured out what an empty, joyless activity it all actually is. Now I use my limited recreation time to make things with my hands, and the satisfaction I get is dramatically superior to whatever simple pleasure a video game provides. (Now if I can convince my son....)
This is a good breakdown, but I think it's looking at the problem from the wrong direction. I prefer "the dog that didn't bark" approach.
Lots of people play these, a few get addicted. It's using seratonin, something that exists in literally every single person who has ever lived, and cliffhangers, which were pioneered centuries ago if not millennia. Might the difference be something that is missing in the people who become addicted, rather than something present in the game itself?
Two ways healthy people regulate their seratonin that I can think up: First, they are reasonably healthy, have avoided chronic stress, and have good things in their lives, so they have the nutrition to produce sufficient seratonin, and have associated it with good things. Diet tweaking and supplements can give you a bit of a boost there. Second, they have the virtue of mortification, and can do things they don't like, and sacrifice things they do. Regular fasting increases the size of the part of the brain that deals in that particular survival skill.
If I have an idea for a single-purchase game app that I think could be very popular, who could I take that to? Do you have any suggestions about how to protect intellectual property (i.e., get paid for inventing the game, not ripped off by a company stealing my idea after I present it to them)?
It's fairly clear that the F2P games are more exploitative than the buy-it-once games, and (potentially) more financially ruinous, too.
But that doesn't mean that buy-it-once games are a good way to spend one's time. Someone who spends significant amounts of time striving for fictional achievements needs to have a good hard think.
As an avid gamer and Pillar reader (in a good way!) I greatly appreciate the interview with Mr. Floyd. He did a great job detailing the design philosophy behind free-to-play games and how they differ from other games. Less thorough publications would look at Fr. Kozak, say "video games bad" and move on, but the interview makes clear that things are much more nuanced. For what it's worth, a lot of gamers have moral objections to this sort of game design, regardless of religion. (We're also convinced that there's just better games to play.)
On the other hand, you needn't necessarily worry if your spouse or mom or whoever plays Candy Crush from time to time. As Mr. Floyd explained, the vast majority of players never pay anything, and even fewer become the whales that support these games.
Agreed - I also play my fair share of video games, though I read more about the industry than I play these days with two little kids, and this is a very good article about this for people who otherwise know little about the game industry and F2P games in particular. People who play games as one of their primary hobbies are often strongly antagonistic to these kinds of models, but younger and more casual gamers, as well as the "whales" that this article talks about make these kinds of models wildly successful for some companies, so this practice is never going away. I will note however that for every Candy Crush there are a dozen other F2P games put out by various companies that fail badly, so not every game like this is a cash cow, and some fail so badly that entire studios are closed because of it.
I also don't foresee any kind of regulation clamping down on these kinds of practices, at least in the U.S. There have been talks about regulating some aspects of microtransactions in the EU, particularly loot boxes (which are more like gambling than the types of purchases discussed in this article), but I haven't heard of those efforts going anywhere, for now at least.
I think this gets at an interesting issue—you or I might dislike free-to-play games because they feel exploitative or disrespectful of our time, especially when there's more mechanically or narratively interesting games out there that don't artificially gate you from playing to needle you into purchasing credits to continue. On the other hand, my grandmother doesn't feel any exploitation, as she just plays it for a little bit then moves on with her day. It's a weird case where, on the face of it, the practice is exploitative, but most people who play those games don't feel the exploitation.
Yep - totally agree. We're just not the intended audience for these kinds of games, or at least the primary audience. I personally would rather spend my money on a game with an engaging story, fleshed out characters, etc. Though I do play a wide variety of games even without these aspects, but I avoid F2P games altogether. It also helps that there are more options than ever these days to get high-quality, full games at relatively cheap prices if you're not picky about playing new releases and are willing to wait for sales and deep discounts that pop up all the time. For someone like me that's more than enough to keep me occupied during my limited free time these days.
Yay for crowdsourcing quality input! Pillar readers without exception provide quality input on so many avenues of inquiry.
I’d add too that it’s not a coincidence that Father in question here developed impulse control problems *after* a severe head trauma. It was a question of what thing he’d get addicted to, not if, after a big injury like that. It could have been any number of things, and his guardian angel worked overtime to make sure it wasn’t porn or opiates or booze, or other illegal substances when it so easily could have been.
I quit playing candy crush and their ilk (occasional player) because they started looking more and more like poker machines and Ive seen how devastating they are. Also, I grew up. That helped. I switched to paper crosswords, not the cryptic kind though. That nonsense just does my head in.
That was my thought too. This priest had some head trauma, then develops impulse control issues. It puts these games, social media, gambling apps etc.. in a much darker light. How many traumatized and/or mentally ill are exploited for money through these things? Not all of these are intended to exploited people necessarily, but they are often intentionally developed to be addicting. These companies know how destructive their products can be. I like the idea of warnings and restrictions on these just like additive substances have.
Thank you. Very interesting.
I do know that I had to put blocks everywhere so that my kids wouldn't purchase anything when playing these "free" games. They did ask more than once if they could, but they have now stopped, for now at least.
> I think it's a slow process, where they get you used to spending a couple bucks every few days or something like that, until you're spending $10 a week, and then $100 a week, because you've just gotten used to the idea that this is “worth” spending money on.
Grooming, essentially. Or we could view it as an exact parallel to the deadening of the conscience that we are taught happens gradually when a person commits very small venial sins because they are not a big deal, then commits deliberate venial sins because they are only venial, then commits grave sins because these too do not seem like a big deal now. I recently watched Nefarious (to report back to some folks who wanted to know whether it was the sort of horror movie they do not watch) and so the process is fresh in my mind ... from the perspective of the enemy there is a further step which the game companies do not have in their plan (since their goal is the wallet, not the soul; they are parasites, not apex predators), which is to confront the person with the fact that this is grave matter (like let's make sure this is deliberate) and convince him that he should continue to do it anyway (the last step would be either despair "I think I cannot be forgiven" or final impenitence "I do not want to be forgiven").
(It is "like" the deadening of the conscience because actually it *is* the deadening of the conscience, but we are used to thinking "this money that I don't 'need' is mine to do whatever I want with". I should reread St Basil's sermon to the rich, which I have a printout of because I need the reminder often.)
https://bekkos.wordpress.com/st-basils-sermon-to-the-rich/ if anyone else likes to spend a half hour traumatizing themselves (I found it originally when I was looking up the quote that is in https://bekkos.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/st-basil-on-stealing-from-the-poor/ some time ago.)
Will traumatize myself. Thanks ;)
The part on horses reminded me of cars. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Sounds like a new chapter for Screwtape Letters--how to get kids/people hooked on video games, then slowly introduce morally worse things into the games...
Great interview!
Having studied the game industry for 20 years as an academic, I can say that media addiction is real (games but also social media, TV). You have to teach your kids how to say no. As a Catholic, I can say that you will have to hunt hard for game content that doesn’t trivialize religion. If your kids like games, get them into board games. Face to face. In D&D you can even make sure the missions are always good vs evil.
This is such an important issue -- not just the games but the whole psycho-ecosystem of the machine. Today Ted Gioia, on his Substack, "The Honest Broker, posted a very prescient commentary on the wider issues. It's behind a pay wall, but if you have access (or would like to pony up for a month), it's a great read.
https://www.honest-broker.com
He concludes: I’m tempted to make jokes about all this. And there is something amusing about people living in a make believe world, like they’ve found their own personal Narnia.
But the darker side of these technologies demand a serious response. They are already creating social havoc on a massive level—every mental illness and psychological metric of harm is on the rise. Meanwhile the techies who cause it keep using the word acceleration—it’s their favorite term right now.
The only thing that gives me comfort is the knowledge that we are smarter than mice. This would be a grand time to prove it.
I agree Gioia's article is excellent. I subscribe to only two things, The Pillar, and Gioia's substack. His wisdom is most edifying.
"... we are smarter than mice."
--> Frankie and Benjy share a sly, knowing smile at each other.
I dabbled with video games years ago and, by the grace of God, quickly figured out what an empty, joyless activity it all actually is. Now I use my limited recreation time to make things with my hands, and the satisfaction I get is dramatically superior to whatever simple pleasure a video game provides. (Now if I can convince my son....)
This is a good breakdown, but I think it's looking at the problem from the wrong direction. I prefer "the dog that didn't bark" approach.
Lots of people play these, a few get addicted. It's using seratonin, something that exists in literally every single person who has ever lived, and cliffhangers, which were pioneered centuries ago if not millennia. Might the difference be something that is missing in the people who become addicted, rather than something present in the game itself?
Two ways healthy people regulate their seratonin that I can think up: First, they are reasonably healthy, have avoided chronic stress, and have good things in their lives, so they have the nutrition to produce sufficient seratonin, and have associated it with good things. Diet tweaking and supplements can give you a bit of a boost there. Second, they have the virtue of mortification, and can do things they don't like, and sacrifice things they do. Regular fasting increases the size of the part of the brain that deals in that particular survival skill.
“He’s a Pillar reader” oh no.
“But in a good way.” phew.
Great interview, a very timely and critical matter.
If I have an idea for a single-purchase game app that I think could be very popular, who could I take that to? Do you have any suggestions about how to protect intellectual property (i.e., get paid for inventing the game, not ripped off by a company stealing my idea after I present it to them)?
It's fairly clear that the F2P games are more exploitative than the buy-it-once games, and (potentially) more financially ruinous, too.
But that doesn't mean that buy-it-once games are a good way to spend one's time. Someone who spends significant amounts of time striving for fictional achievements needs to have a good hard think.