Gaming Should Games that use Skinner's Box's "Variable Ratio Conditioning" be Regulated

MartianMallCop

Proficient
Nov 19, 2014
99
51
33
26

Let me know what you guys think society should do about this.

ps... I'm double dipping and using this as a school project for ASU
 

boomer

Not Qualified
Oct 8, 2014
37
26
78
You're looking at skinner's box with the idea that the reward is an actual item. The reward could be something like a cutscene or a "good job" at the end of something or even the unlocking of the next level. When you think about it, the whole game uses this. It's the reason you buy it.

Video games are initially bought with money and with the purpose of using the user's time.
You can look at it like this (cost) = (time) (enjoyment) [I'm using time as if it's a good thing. I generally buy games with the thought of how long I'd play them and compare them to movie tickets. Such as a 60$ game = 6 movie tickets which would be around 18 hours of entertainment I should receive at least.]
Anyway, that's off-topic.

Life itself is randomized and distributed unevenly.
Is it unfair? yes.
Can we stop it? no.
Can we spend money/time/work fixing this? yes, usually.
Would you fix it if you could?
I wouldn't. It causes creativity and makes life a game. There are two ways to play. Use the tools presented to you or fight the tide and push for something you want) If everyone got what they want the first time then there's little game.

The earliest game to use a "Skinner's box" that I can think of goes back to Dungeons and Dragons. They have loot tables and you aren't guaranteed to get something you want. Your fighter might get a scroll, or your wizard a fancy magical sword. You might want to take a skill or dual class to fit what has been given to you. You have to get creative and that's just a life lesson that these games teach you. When life gives you lemons, make lemonade.

Back to video games today. There's more of a slight problem with the randomness at least in Destiny's case. In destiny's case, there's leveled equipment in which you need to progress. You aren't guaranteed the tools to progress. This takes up a lot of time that upsets the player as there is nothing they can do about it, while their friends might jump ahead of them with little work. The game developers should realize this and make adjustments.

As for aesthetics randomized gear like in overwatch and halo... it's hard to say... but I'd like to compare it back to my equation for my games (cost) = (time)(enjoyment) When the player buys from one of these games they don't usually do it for a game they hate but one they like. That means that they got either enough time or enjoyment out of it that they don't mind spending a little more for a little more enjoyment (having variations in their game to mix it up a little). There's no reason to stop this.

Using randomization to keep the player playing isn't such a bad thing. What should be happening is the evolution of the player to become satiated, to fight back and evolve. To find out that they don't need what they're going for and can make due with the tools provided. The problem is that not every human is the same and what can really push someone can keep another person stuck. There's no way around this and it can't be regulated.

As for mobile gaming which I see your friend has mentioned. Those are the DEVIL as my moma would say. If something is free generally someone will try it out with an open mind. What happens is that they fall for the cheap rewards and become attached and curiosity conditions them to come back when their "game timer" recharges or whatever it may be called. At some point these games hit a brick wall where the user must pay and by that time the user has invested lots of time into that game even if they don't really enjoy it. They'll pay even though these games usually offer no knowledge or even enjoyment. For some of these games paying is the only way to win. Those build your own fort from the ground up and build an army in this infinitely big map covered with players. These games make use of a pre-existing condition that they want to win. They're everywhere, the mobile market is saturated with this.
If you want to go further into the mobile market thing I believe they passed a law in Great Britain to ban these games for users under the age of 21? or something of that nature.
 

MartianMallCop

Proficient
Nov 19, 2014
99
51
33
26
You're looking at skinner's box with the idea that the reward is an actual item. The reward could be something like a cutscene or a "good job" at the end of something or even the unlocking of the next level. When you think about it, the whole game uses this. It's the reason you buy it.

Video games are initially bought with money and with the purpose of using the user's time.
You can look at it like this (cost) = (time) (enjoyment) [I'm using time as if it's a good thing. I generally buy games with the thought of how long I'd play them and compare them to movie tickets. Such as a 60$ game = 6 movie tickets which would be around 18 hours of entertainment I should receive at least.]
Anyway, that's off-topic.

Life itself is randomized and distributed unevenly.
Is it unfair? yes.
Can we stop it? no.
Can we spend money/time/work fixing this? yes, usually.
Would you fix it if you could?
I wouldn't. It causes creativity and makes life a game. There are two ways to play. Use the tools presented to you or fight the tide and push for something you want) If everyone got what they want the first time then there's little game.

The earliest game to use a "Skinner's box" that I can think of goes back to Dungeons and Dragons. They have loot tables and you aren't guaranteed to get something you want. Your fighter might get a scroll, or your wizard a fancy magical sword. You might want to take a skill or dual class to fit what has been given to you. You have to get creative and that's just a life lesson that these games teach you. When life gives you lemons, make lemonade.

Back to video games today. There's more of a slight problem with the randomness at least in Destiny's case. In destiny's case, there's leveled equipment in which you need to progress. You aren't guaranteed the tools to progress. This takes up a lot of time that upsets the player as there is nothing they can do about it, while their friends might jump ahead of them with little work. The game developers should realize this and make adjustments.

As for aesthetics randomized gear like in overwatch and halo... it's hard to say... but I'd like to compare it back to my equation for my games (cost) = (time)(enjoyment) When the player buys from one of these games they don't usually do it for a game they hate but one they like. That means that they got either enough time or enjoyment out of it that they don't mind spending a little more for a little more enjoyment (having variations in their game to mix it up a little). There's no reason to stop this.

Using randomization to keep the player playing isn't such a bad thing. What should be happening is the evolution of the player to become satiated, to fight back and evolve. To find out that they don't need what they're going for and can make due with the tools provided. The problem is that not every human is the same and what can really push someone can keep another person stuck. There's no way around this and it can't be regulated.

As for mobile gaming which I see your friend has mentioned. Those are the DEVIL as my moma would say. If something is free generally someone will try it out with an open mind. What happens is that they fall for the cheap rewards and become attached and curiosity conditions them to come back when their "game timer" recharges or whatever it may be called. At some point these games hit a brick wall where the user must pay and by that time the user has invested lots of time into that game even if they don't really enjoy it. They'll pay even though these games usually offer no knowledge or even enjoyment. For some of these games paying is the only way to win. Those build your own fort from the ground up and build an army in this infinitely big map covered with players. These games make use of a pre-existing condition that they want to win. They're everywhere, the mobile market is saturated with this.
If you want to go further into the mobile market thing I believe they passed a law in Great Britain to ban these games for users under the age of 21? or something of that nature.
Thank you for responding! I think a lot of people miss the point of this video (partially my fault for not being fully explicit). I completely agree with the most of the points you have stated and in fact, I personally think that we should never regulate a game mechanic. Even if it is the use of "variable ratio reinforcement" (the most effective way to addict someone based of the Skinner's box experiments). I also should have explained the difference of a game having a random element and a game using variable ratio reinforcement (they are very different). The point of the video was to educate people on how variable ratio reinforcement is being used to exploit people and ask them if they think government action should take place or not and if so how. I wanted to provoke discussion and not provide a clear answer, even though i had my own opinion on the question. (This was because that was required by my ASU assignment otherwise I probably would have included my opinion)