Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Why did MMOs become about the money and numbers?
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
I take it you didn't even look anything up then. The skinner box is a psychology theory that more or less describes the basic mechanics of the random reward system used in many MMOs.
The simple description would be that you can establish the gifting of a reward when a player completes an action to establish a positive view of the situation, and after a while you decrease the rate of reward so that you can extend the play. Rather than simply turning a player off, this randomness that's generated in the rewards prompts the player to play more in an attempt to receive the good rewards.
It's a principle that's used in gambling as well, slot machines are a simple example of it.
This isn't an opinion, it's psychology with tons of information to find on the subject should you simply open Google.
EDIT: So to quote you back.
"Beliefs are fine as long as your personal opinion goes but does not make you right nor stand up for valid argument."
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Movies causing people go violent is also a psychological theory, both are on the same ground of silly things invented by same pseudoscience.
On the contrary, psychology is just that...an opinion.
Movies causing people to go violent isn't a psychological theory, it's the spitballed conclusion that needs support from psychological theories. You aren't even trying to make a valid point.
Psychology isn't simply opinion. There is both hard science and research done in the field. There is need much like in any field of science to approach only works that's been vetted, or clearly establish information using data rather than simply speculation.
What you are doing is yanking things baselessly from left field and trying to act like that's the same thing. It's disingenuous at best.
So seriously, do some research before you try to make an argument next time.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
You must have missed the late 70' - 80'...
This "hard science" and "research" produced things like phrenology, behaviorism and well over 40k lobotomies performed just in US.
"Modern" psychology is not really different, the only difference is that you live in the same era and do not have the 30-60 years time distance to see how stupid this pseudoscience is...
This obvious is not true, particularly in the movie industry. Huge amount of risk are taken with data to show that some may not pan out.
Case in point, just 2013 ... there are multiple high risk original IP that costs up to 200M. Disney spent 200M on Lone Ranger, a western with a character with no super power in the sea of super hero movies. They also took the risk on John Carter (based on a old novel few of their audience has heard of) and lost big.
So it is not like they don't know the risk.
Pacific Rim is another big risk with original IP. It bombed in the US but does ok overseas.
The only non risky 2013 big movies are Iron Man 3 (everyone knows that is is going to make money), and the Wolverine.
pseudoscience might be regarded as science at some point, but if it lacks supporting evidence, it eventually fails. Hence why those fields are considered pseudoscience and not science.
If you're not going to make a valid point, we can't have a valid conversation.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
...and it keeps failing as I pointed out. Just look at DSM, there couldn't be anything more laughable about a discipline that is claiming to be a science.
You are the one with the lack of any evidence, all your back up is based on belief.
Hence proving you aren't even willing to look up what I told you about. The evidence is present for you to look at any time you wish to boot up a browser, pretending it's not there doesn't make it disappear.
Until you know what you're talking about, there's little to no point in talking to you.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back in the same box. ~ Italian proverb
A ready made fan base will not save a bad movie/game.
It still has to be good in order to work.
Ones without the base still have to be good, and then cultivate that base. That is more risky.
In the fall there is a new TV show called SHIELD based on the avengers coming. the first show will be watched by millions because it has a ready made base. If it isn't good, they won't watch the second. If it is decent, or better good - the base is allready there for further shows. No need to cultivate further, word of mouth and the press will do all the advertising for them.
Beliefs do not stand for evidence.
Your argument that one is capable to make a game that somehow make people "addicted" of some kind is based on pseudoscience. It's silly and untrue...
Second verse, same as the first.
You can't even comment on whether there is a factual basis to the subject until you read up on it. Otherwise you're shouting opinion into the wind.
What you call pseudoscience (skinner box, etc), you don't even understand (as you have stated your disinterest in learning about it), so how can I take your commentary to have any weight or value?
Until you read up on what you're dismissing out of hand, there is no merit in conversation with you.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Gdemani and I have very different views when it comes to neuropsychology but I have to agree with her here regarding addictions only (sorry still say your wrong on psychology in general, but yes there are a lot of walked practitioners out there).
Curent evidence shows addictions are based on receptor disregulation. No you cannot become addicted to your own hormones/chemicals. Adrenaline junkies are not addicted to it. No there is no such thing as an addictive personality. No you cannot become addicted to anything. And no not everyone (in fact most won't) become addicated to whatever drugs are out there even if they do take them.
Without receptor disrgulation is not an addication, it is an abuse, possible a severe abuse but not an addiction. The difference between the two lie in the locus of control and treatment methods for each. Addiction issues the locus is chemical and can be controlled from an external (chemicals) or internal (thoughts affecting changing receptors). Treatment for addictions is not about weaning or slowing down, they cannot have the substance at all. they can replace it in order to make them more functional,but the receptor is not working properly, re-introduction of the substance starts the process over again.
With abuse the locus of controls is internal meaning your thoughts and actions can control it, external measures are not needed.
AA and NA work for both because both (as stated above) thoughts and by extension actions can help re-regulate receptors and help people manage their abuse.
There is definately a grey area between severe abuse and mild addiction though.
What was once called addictive personalities is either abuse issues, or multiple receptor disregulation issues.
These will likely change in the future as we leanr more. It is reasonable and appropriate to change the diagnosis and treatment as more information becomes available (which is why the DSM changes). Again this is reasonable and appropriate.
Based on the above, video games (until it is shown that they do/can cause disregulation) are not addictoins, but can be abused.
That's all well and good, but that doesn't address what I was referring to either. I was never talking about addiction.
I was referencing the skinner box and the manner games can and are designed to promote excitement, though not necessarily through exciting situations.
For example, games made with the intention of excitement through offering a perceived reward for it's activities, rather than there being excitement derived from the activity itself. The quality or interest of the game itself becomes less important than the regulation of reward to incentivize play.
It was Gde that went on tangent that brought us to commenting on psychology in general.
EDIT: To be fair, yes when talking about the skinner box concept it's referencing the idea of addicting you to the game.
I never addressed that point, as you can go back in my posts and see that I have been commenting on the nature of how we derive enjoyment of games, and the skinner box concept of enjoyment requires only a relatively simple mechanic that's easy to establish as opposed to a game where you derive entertainment from the gameplay itself rather than the rewards.
EDIT2: Wouldn't mind an article on that 'no hormone addiction' comment though, as so far I'm finding things dated 2010 that say the inverse and going so far as to cite the many forms of addictions such as 'runner's high' that is an entirely self-brought condition (meaning the effects are coming from your own hormones/chemicals). A PM might be better than here.
As it ties back to gaming, my point has generally remained that a game only needs to satisfy you on a basic level for one to consider it fun, and that MMOs consequently are built on a variable scale based on how they are making their games enjoyable (a game made simply for profit catering to the lowest necessary conditions to provide entertainment, such as trickling rewards).
Whether addiction or abuse, the condition exists to be capitalized on without necessarily making a quality game.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I do not support Deivos's ideas completely but this has given me an excuse to get out two favourite old pictures of mine -
First they put you in a Skinner box:
Then they let you sit and play your box:
There are plenty of articles backing this fact up if one chooses to research for them. Large companies have been known to hire psychologists, economists, etc.. to help create hooks for the masses (generalized and not excluding myself).
Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back in the same box. ~ Italian proverb
We're not even remotely talking about art people aren't buying. We're talking about art which is being purchased.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
+1
I know.. LOL but this person is not a sheep.. I don't care how many bikini clad women are dancing around on my TV to promote beer.. I just don't like beer.. LOL Hell, I didn't even watch Baywatch... lol Marketers hate me..
Then I do not see your point since only 2 options are left:
1) There is no reason to starve when your products are being sold since you make enough money to feed you.
2) Your sales are low and then you should consider changing your business.
In either case, it is their choice to run a business that isn't making enough money for them, in a way or another.