There seems to be an awful lot of gullible gamers on forums, defending loot boxes, and other mechanics, even denying psychologists are involved.
Let me set the record straight. Blizzard, EA, Ubisoft, and pretty much every large gaming company hires psychologists to make loot boxes and games as addictive as possible.
Here are just some out of hundreds of applications from gaming companies wanting psychologists.
These were posted within the last week
Blizzard Entertainment
Quality Assurance
User Researcher Requirements
Graduate degree (MSc or PhD) in psychology, human-computer interaction, human factors
Ubisoft.
User Research Analyst
Qualifications Education :
B.S. degree in HCI, Psychology or relevant training and experience
Masterâs degree in ergonomics, HCI, cognitive psychology preferred
PhD in any of the above fields is an asset.
ZeniMax Media Inc. id Software
Associate User Researcher Preferred Skills: Degree in psychology
Sony Interactive Entertainment
User Experience Researcher Desired qualifications: Masterâs Degree/PhD in Psychology, Cognitive Science
I keep buying these stupid expansions⌠maybe I am gullible. Probably didnât need to employ a psychologist to figure out that a large portion of your playerbase are idiots thoughâŚ
If anything, the real psychological test is sitting on this forum for longer than ten minutes.
Thatâs the thing though. Itâs not about people being idiots or not. Proper UI/UX design is hard and you need people who understand human behavior to maximize its effectiveness. If your software is easy to use (meaning its UI/UX is good) then people are more likely to keep using it/buy it. Thatâs why psych degrees are useful, particularly those focused on human/machine interactions.
This isnât new, weâve had that kind of work being done in IO settings for decades.
That being said, if you keep paying for this game and you think thatâs stupid, then maaaaaaaaaaaaybe⌠donât do that anymore? Youâll probably be happier that way.
No psychologist or gaming company is going to admit that they try to make loot boxes or games addictive or induce gambling.
But plenty of evidence shows the goal of hiring those psychologists, is to create an addictive environment.
The American Psychological Association>
âMore and more companies are starting to see the value in hiring psychologists or folks with a background in psychology,â says Mike Ambinder, PhD, an experimental psychologist at a Bellevue, Wash., game design company called Valve.
The most common â and most well-established â role for psychologists is user research, which largely entails testing whether players experience games the way companies intended, say Ambinder and others. User researchers work with the production team to understand their goals for a game, then translate those goals into testable questions. The team might want to make sure a certain level of a game gives players a sense of excitement or anxiety, for example.
Studies offer a fascinating means for psychologists to apply their understanding of human behavior, says Nichols. After all, video games are all about engagement, motivation, reinforcement, attention and other topics dear to psychologists, he says.
Doesnât seem that way to me. If anything I say hating on Activition/Bliz is the cool/populist thing, with defenders get thrown with labels like âshillâ or âwhite knightâ (even though the latter is kinda silly, since white knights are supposed to be defending the weak, not big corporations with all the money and power)
As for your quote: all of that can be used without addiction being the ultimate goal. It could just as well be that youâre trying to make sure the game is actually fun, and that there arenât unnecessary roadblocks in your playersâ experience (again, UX). After all, nobody in their right mind would claim a store is trying to make customers âaddicted to spendingâ just because they start taking credit cards in addition to cash.
Besides, if you seriously have such a low opinion of gaming companies, maybe consider a different hobby? Assuming your hobby is videogames, not being preachy on the forums. If itâs the latter, by all means carry on.
To me, a gaming company has a responsibility to ensure their products do not lead to problem gambling.
The fact these gaming companies are using psychologists while implementing loot box and gacha mechanics, is incredibly, incredibly, disturbing.
Blizzard should have removed loot boxes when studies like these recently surfaced.
Dr James Close, Senior Research Fellow, University of Plymouth:
âOur work has established that engagement with loot boxes is associated with problem gambling behaviours, with players encouraged to purchase through psychological techniques such as âfear of missing outâ. We have also demonstrated that at-risk individuals, such as problem gamblers, gamers, and young people, make disproportionate contributions to loot box revenues. Younger males, and those with a lower educational attainment are more likely to purchase loot boxes."
Maybe, but then you get into the weeds of whatâs âaddictionâ vs. simply increasing engagement. Murkying the difference between the two doesnât help the conversation, IMO. And of course, I wouldnât mind Aurelieâs post half as much if they were able to even that modicum of nuance. But theyâre not, so here we are.
For the umpteenth time: you canât prove a causal relationship with correlational data. If you donât understand that, then maybe stop citing science you arenât trained well enough to understand.
Game companies hire or consult with psychologists all the time. Iâve worked at a gaming studio and it was discussed as a focal point
The psychologist are NOT always consulted on the monetary side of the game (loot boxes, etc.) Theyâre also consulted on player engagement design (quests, loot drop rates, color schemes, etc.), UI design, and player profiling.
I mean, to a degree, old games like Diablo (really any ARPG) you could argue could do this. As someone who plays poker for fun and has kids (so I see both sides of the argument personally) I view it as the responsibility of the parent to shy away from the gambling aspects for younger children (Iâve explained here before⌠Iâd trust my 9 y/o w/ HS more than my 13 y/o because of their personalities and likelihood of addiction) but I also donât view gambling as inherently evil if you can moderate yourself.
Well, a link that shows (3) is the only reason why (1) happens would be a start, but (2) doesnât do that. Again, Iâm not suggesting âletâs make games more addictiveâ isnât a reason, but itâs certainly not the only reason as you originally claimed (and failed to provide evidence for).
I mean, Iâve at least worked in the game industry before, which probably isnât a universal constant on this thread.
My experience on all this is: The amount of behavior in the game industry that is applicable to what we are talking about here is less than its worst detractors say, but itâs also not zero.
The priority of any game developer, first and foremost, is to make a fun game - and Hearthstone has succeeded at that, or we wouldnât all be here.
But there are secondary priorities, and things like lootbox wrangling are certainly among them.
Also, Aurelie is sourcing their assertions and I think you do have to give them credit for that.
You asked evidence to support my argument, I have done so.
My argument is that these gaming companies hire psychologists to induce addiction in gamers, particularly loot boxes, and that this leads to problem gambling. I have supported this with hiring data, peer review studies, and statements from the American psychology association.
You disagree. Fine, but I expect some evidence from your side to support your argument.
As presented, the argument is that the sole reason to hire psychologists is to make games addictive, which you have not provided evidence with. All you have is individual facts that are linked by a set of assumptions you have not provided support for. If you want to qualify that initial statement to clarify that thereâs more to psychology in games than making games addictive, that would be a start.
That being said:
That bolded bit? You havenât proven that, because the studies you keep linking to donât do that. And they donât do that because the studies arenât designed to explain causation, only correlation. Loot box purchases might lead to problem gambling, but itâs also possible (and IMO, likely) that problem gambling (or rather, personality traits that result in it) leads to higher loot box purchases.
And Iâve said this multiple times, and you still ignore the obvious fact that the studies you cite donât (and canât) show the causal link you claim exists. If you continue making those statements despite this, Iâll have to assume you either donât understand the difference between correlation and causation, or choose to ignore it for the sake of your agenda.
Just for emphasis: the same studies you are quoting. The ones I bothered to look up and read.
No that was never part of my argument anywhere. My argument is that these psychologists are used to shape the game to make it more addictive and to make loot boxes more addictive, I also argue that this leads to problem gambling as supported by studies.
Iâm sure those psychologists do other things at Blizzard, and that is not their âsoleâ job description, maybe they water plants or make coffee, I frankly donât care.
Just for emphasis: the same studies you are quoting. The ones I bothered to look up and read.
Letâs agree to this. I will reply to you again once you have supported your argument with a scientific study or something else besides rambling.
I have seen you post in many threads, with the sole purpose being to take the opposite argument of the OP, without evidence to back up your argument.
Gotta say: Corporations should not be free of consequences, but expecting healthy and ethical habits from them is Dumb. Why do you think McDonalds arcs are yellow?
Every corporation out there analyzes human behaviour to maximize profits. Thatâs nothing new. But itâs nice to see people understanding some of the problems with the capitalist model.
Just quoting on studies that donât prove what you think they prove isnât basing your argument on anything dude.
