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

cough cough supply drops
I think there should be a regulation where the developers tell you your exact chances of getting loot. That way you know what you are going to get. This way players are informed about the choice they make.

 

So I have no formal education on this sort of thing, so anything I say should be taken with a grain of salt. How is buying a REQ pack, for example, different to buying a Pokemon Card booster pack (is it bad that this was the first example that came to mind)? Would the latter also be considered gambling? I expect not, because like REQ packs, while there is no guarantee of getting any single card, the rewards are set to be some proportion of common/uncommon/rare cards. So when you buy a pack, you may not get what you want, or you may get doubles of something you already have (something that REQ packs actually avoid to some degree, by having certifications). Poker machines have a good chance of returning nothing at all, as do other forms of gambling, so I don't think the comparison is TOTALLY justified. I wouldn't mind some change to the system, but to my mind regulation of such a banal thing is not really worth it.

 

They could be done better, but if they eliminate paid dlc like H5 I think they're great.

 

Loved this video - not nearly enough design talk here! Have you considered posting this to somewhere like Gamasutra?

In response, I don't think we should regulate the use of Skinner's Box systems in video games. I do think the gaming industry itself should self-police for unethical exploitation of customers, especially minors. More on that after the legal side of things.

Legally speaking, the premise you bring up in the video:
-> Gambling is regulated
-> Gambling is defined as risking value for a chance at greater value
-> Video games using Skinner's Box systems share many of the characteristics of gambling in terms of risk and reward.
=> Therefore, video games using such systems could be regulated.

The thing is, I don't think games like Destiny share the "important" characteristics of gambling that got it regulated. Historically, gambling in the U.S. has been regulated as an anti-criminal measure, both because of its close relation to organized crime and the nature of difficult-to-audit large transactions of cash. As transactions in video games all happen digitally due to the medium, tracking the exchange of money becomes very easy to do. I would support some accounting rules as far as regulation goes, but I don't think it justifies the elimination of Skinner's Box systems from some games.

Also, as @FrostPhoenix0 pointed out, there are many existing systems that use Skinner's Box. Pokemon cards or other TCG's, physical games of chance like Bingo, or even the lottery systems used to distribute hunting licenses in other states. Federally, gambling is legal; individual states ban different kinds, but on the whole, the country seems to be okay with people being able to take informed risks with their money. I'd also raise investments in the stock market, insurance products, and business decisions as further examples that society is very comfortable with risky bets. The place I'm most open to regulation on - games where children interact with these systems, are pretty covered from a monetary perspective since someone needs to be providing that money - e.g. parents. If you don't want your kid spending money; don't give your kid that money. So, legally speaking, I don't think we should regulate on the basis of the gambling comparison.

The more interesting question, in my opinion, is the moral ground of these chance based systems. I think it's what you were trying to get at in the video with the pigeon comparison. Is it really okay to use psychological techniques to extract value from players? This is where the moral arguments behind gambling regulation come in as well - abusing compulsive behaviors of your players for fun and profit isn't ethical. That said, people really do enjoy playing these games. The Destiny example you used, how shooting enemies has a chance at random drops means players will shoot all the enemies didn't cover the whole picture for me. I am playing a shooter after all; ostensibly, I bought the game for the sole purpose of shooting things. The reward drops are just gravy, just like the story and the gorgeous art. I've got the information available to me on how the game works, and ultimately I don't think the government should be in the business of stopping informed consumers from making their own decisions, especially when the side effects are just time spend, instead of harm to self or others like in the case of hard drugs like heroin.

I also disagree with your assessment that the Skinner's Box systems will "trick" players into doing things they don't want to do. It's not that you're incorrect; I definitely would not have spent a half hour headshotting Fallen if I hadn't gotten some kind of loot drop for it. However, I don't think I've been "tricked" - the fact is, I enjoy making progress towards a goal, even if the work is tedious. It's kinda like saying gyms trick people into thinking they like working out by giving them muscles/endurance at the end. Yes, the activity is tedious and takes effort that wouldn't be spent without a reward, but for me at least, if someone thinks they are enjoying something, then they actually are enjoying it - even if they articulate it as "playing Destiny" instead of "playing Destiny for a specific loot drop."

That all said, I'd definitely support an industry board (such as the ESRB) for giving ethical ratings to games that make use of microtransactions. I don't think most legislators have a good understanding of video games as an entertainment medium, and I'm not comfortable having them set standards for what is a very new field. I'd be much more comfortable having an industry board that is made up of industry experts make those judgements, as it allows us as a gaming community to have a better say in what's acceptable and not acceptable. Maybe this gets reflected in the ESRB rating (Immediate bump to "T" if you've got Skinner's Boxes"), or maybe we do a seperate "ethical rating" where, if you've got a sleazy game that targets kids or abuses compulsive behaviors, then you get dinged. You'd need buy-in from publishers to do this, but I think this could also be helpful in terms of addressing more issues, such as other types of addicting behaviors around microtransactions... I've read some stuff on monetizing "whales" in games like Clash of Clans that seem downright evil.

/end thought dump. Really liked the video - I'm curious on what your thoughts are for the rewards offered by a ranking system such as Halo as an incentive to come back and play the game over and over again. It's still pulling my little monkey lever to re-engage with the game, but is the fact that it's based on my performance instead of a randomized button make it any better? My opponents are randomized (though closely matched), so we're still satisfying criteria #2 from your video...