To put a slight spin on the aphorism: there will always be someone to part a fool from his money.

There's tons of laws to protect people from false advertising, fraud, and such. But if, armed with the facts and all of these protections, someone still spends their money unwisely, that's no longer the government's problem. To use another aphorism: you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

> There's tons of laws to protect people from false advertising, fraud, and such. But if, armed with the facts and all of these protections, someone still spends their money unwisely, that's no longer the government's problem.

Laws hadn't caught up with progress in game industry yet. It's high time for it though. I understand the reluctance to regulate things, but when we have a whole industry which explicit purpose is figuring out the best way to abuse bugs in human psychology to part them with their money, I think some reaction is warranted.

> To use another aphorism: you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

Oh, but modern marketing is all about exploiting horse's cognitive heuristics to make it drink.

> we have a whole industry which explicit purpose is figuring out the best way to abuse bugs in human psychology to part them with their money, I think some reaction is warranted.

The video game industry did not invent slimy salesmen. Learning to say "no" to salesmen has been a basic life skill for all of human history. Millions of people manage to do it every day. It's one of the things that parents drill into their kids heads as they grow up.

We're talking about video games, frivolous entertainment. If you spend all of next month's rent on in-app purchases, you've thoroughly earned the consequences of your actions. And those consequences will serve as a potent lesson.

And the law has already gotten involved with recent developments in the game industry. The FTC and EU have already forced Apple and Google to ensure that children cannot make purchases without parental permission. With that in place, it's now up to the parents to say "no" to their children. Another basic life skill, with consequences for those who ignore it.

This isn't about simple ads. This is about serious manipulation. Would it be okay for a car salesman to send people to follow you around find out where you hang out, then have a one of them casually start up a conversation at some restaurant or bar, befriend you, and then a few days later, after you've became friends, subtly suggest they really like the same type of car the sales person has to sell?

Maybe you're okay with that but it's that kind of behavior the OP is against. Not just simple sales tactics to say no to but full on manipulation.

You can apply all your same arguments to gambling, but society disagrees -- gambling is regulated.

So regulated that states, through the lottery, are collectively the largest pushers and profiteers.

Somehow I suspect that kind of "regulation" is not what OP had in mind.

Totally irrelevant. This is the logical fallacy argumentum ad populum (i.e. appeal to the majority). We settle our differences democratically, but the outcome could very well be the worse option.

And, by the way, there's plenty of places where gambling is legal, including parts of the US.

I'm no fan of these games, but is it fundamentally different from, say, Harley-Davidson?

Yes. When HD advertises to you, you buy a bike and you're done. And you have an actual, existent bike. And you could sell it later should you feel like you made a mistake. With whales, they spend and spend and spend - way more than a Harley costs them. And what do they end up with? Sweet FA.

I don't think that is his point; that's not what Harley does, at all.

H-D markets themselves as a "lifestyle brand". You don't just buy a motorcycle and you're done. You are aggressively marketed toward for a bunch of different pieces of clothing, spare parts, co-branded partnerships with automobile companies, et cetera, ad nauseum. You are effectively buying into a subculture.

Furthermore, Harley-Davidson has been known to use almost identical sales tactics. IIRC and I can't find it now, but sometime last year a sales guidelines book was leaked that actually did things like put attractive models at gas stations to tell the prospective buyer "nice bike" or the like on their test rides.

You make a good point, identity based marketing is, I think, fundamentally manipulative, whether the purchased product is physical or not. The "problem" is that it's just so damn effective. There's a void for identity sources (which one might claim was caused on purpose) and so anything that fits will be used to fill it. Then it's just a matter of effective propagation.

One difference I see is that H-D subculture is not ephemeral. If H-D decided to wrap up their business and disappear tomorrow, the bikes will still be there. The clothes will still be there. The brand, the culture created around it over the years, will still exist. Contrast with the "value" whales purchase for their games that could cease to exist the moment the game company decides to shut down their servers.

What about anything else where you are paying for the experience? While not a perfect analogy, Walt Disney World comes to mind: it's a place you take your family, and you are subject to potentially spending tens of thousands of dollars there, in the parks and the hotels, on food and attractions. Amusement parks, like casinos, are labyrinthine and optimized to take your money, and food/drinks are usually extremely overpriced for the quality. Leaving souvenirs aside, is this, too, something you are against?

I disagree with the way you compare memories and bonding moments with your family/friends to a game you are usually meant to spend alone and are unable to remember what you did in it last week.

Does that mean the fundamental problem is the inability to resell in-game purchases?

That, and if the game closes up for whatever reason (no longer making money, whatever), all of your investment into it can quickly vanish into literally nothing.

If you crash your uninsured Harley it's no different.

That's your own fault. The difference I see is that H-D stuff's value isn't entirely dependent on the company itself; they don't control it past the point of sale. They can't change their mind and unmake your bike, or your biker jacket, or your local H-D club.

That goes back to my statement above about the problem being an inability to resell.

It's not quite the same though. With digital things, the very existence of it depends on a third party who might close up shop whenever without warning. If Harley Davidson goes bust someday, all the bikes they made don't just vanish into thin air.

This is independent of whether or not you can resell them. Whether or not you're permitted to resell the items won't matter any more if they all vanish due to a company going out of business or leaving the game behind.

Can't buy Game Closure Insurance (yet)

Probably just because the stuff has no value in the first place. Add in a secondary market and insurance should be obtainable. (Not that many would or should obtain it.)