I'm curious to know some examples of what is and isn't permitted. The flashing lights, interesting but not too interesting ding-dong-boom sounds, the loud massive amping up when you win something, all that is allowed and I believe (though don't quite have a source at hand) that these are provably enticing hooks. I'm sure there are things that aren't, but I'm curious as to what.

I'm also curious about want Candy Crush does that a slot machine can't by regulation? Is it a level of interactivity?

The most basic thing Candy Crush does that slot machines can't is adapt its behavior to the user.

Candy Crush can (and does) let you play freely, only to popup the "insert coin to get help" when you are stuck. It also adjusts the game play to your level (by advancing to harder levels) so that you are always challenged and possibly get stuck. If you advance by paying, you probably will need to pay more to get further (if you failed an easier level without help you will probably fail later levels without such help).

In an imaginary world, a slot machine could have a camera to track who is playing. It would let you play for free the first few times, even give you some money, but leaving you one "advance" short of the stronger payments. After some rolls, you are prompted to insert coins to get extra advances. Of course, the machine keeps the payment structure favorable to itself, but tricking you into inserting more and more coins, all the while getting you hooked into the game. It could even adjust the payment structure to be more and more in its favor the more "hooked" it detects you are.

Regulation that prevents the above:

1. Slot machines cannot track users by any means.

2. The payment distribution has to fit certain parameters (think X% of money given back within N rolls)

Casinos themselves kind of do this though, right? They give you a card with a balance to pay for games and load winnings, and sometimes they just add extra money to it if you've had a bad day to keep you playing. At least that's what I recall reading somewhere.

Comps are a thing for people gambling at a certain level (thousands of dollars). It’s less about keeping you gambling and more about keeping you gambling _there_.

They’re intended for people that gamble a lot - not so much if you lose, it’s more about the level of money your putting at risk over time. Long run, the casino will make money off you. They want you to stay at their property. It’s also a way to recoup losses if you’ve won a lot.

I had a good run on slots and craps once at the Venetian, and was invited to a slot tournament with a free dinner and 3 free nights stay. I then won the slot tournament. But my broader non-tournament play didn’t keep up with the level they were looking for (they wanted you to take the tournament money and spend it there) so the comps got fewer and weaker. They came back months later when I started playing and winning (show tickets, dinners, etc). A bit of play credit can happen but it’s usually not a lot unless you’re a high roller (tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars).

Before the casino cards it was the pit bosses that would keep an eye on you, so this predates surveillance technology, it’s old school.

Hah, that's fascinating. A direct end-run around it in a way that you wouldn't think to regulate.

The game also registers if you do pay and keeps track of how often, and adjusts the game difficulty dynamically to ‘milk’ you.

The real question is how such mechanism when applied to freemium games would affect their profitability.

The industry is getting too greedy these days, even paid AAA games have this microtransaction crap, they are milking gamers dry.

Ironically the gaming press barely talks about this.

Isn't Williams red hot respin free plays?

I believe he’s referring to “near misses” being illegal in some jurisdictions (Nevada being one). Slot machines are not supposed to be engineered to make it look like you almost won a large jackpot, but didn’t.

Candy Crush seems to specialize in near misses, for example by creating levels where almost all of the achievements required to pass a given level are easy, and then one is next to impossible. You don’t keep $1 billion+ per year coming in on a years-old game without some serious psychological tricks.

For one, it's illegal for children to play on a slot machine.

You've gotten me wondering: Why AREN'T certain games subject to the same regulations as slot machines?

Is that a state-by-state regulation? A federal regulation? And does the regulating code specifically mention physical machines?

Thanks in advance for satisfying my curiosity.

> Why AREN'T certain games subject to the same regulations as slot machines?

Slot machines are regulated because they fall under the category of gambling and video games don't meet the legal definition of gambling. (Although, I'd agree that it's starting to seem more and more as if they should.)

There's a pretty good explanation of the criteria at https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti... but the brief summary (from the article) is "Gambling consists of three elements: consideration, prize and chance. If any one of those three elements is missing, the game is simply not gambling (Rose, 1986))."

By looking at those criteria, there's a lot of ways video game companies can defend themselves. The strongest one IMO being that, from a legal standpoint, there is no prize. You "win" things or get drops but the TOS of all games say that the player does not own them (or anything else in the game) in any legal sense. The analogy would be more like a carnival ride where you are paying for the experience rather than the expectation of getting anything material in return.

> the TOS of all games say that the player does not own them

Yet loads of people sell their in-game items (that they got through chance) for real money. So in a sense, they do own them.

Usually despite being banned by the TOS, as a black market kind of operation.

More problematicly, im not sure how youd stop it from extending to say WoW gold-selling, or even cartridges with 100% saves on them.

People will attribute value to anything for any number of reasons, but I’m not sure you can make regulation on anything beyond “encouraging” such behavior. (And I would assume these companies already actively discourage it; you’re not supposed to be able to get money back out of the system!)

This doesn't actually get money out of the system. If I sell you my WoW account, money has changed hands but none of that money has come from WoW/Blizzard.

There are some game developers looking at sanctioned RMT right now because it would be a huge selling point. "Make money playing video games" used to be a popular slogan on tacky banner ads. That could see a comeback in a different way.

Sanctioned RMT works through some official marketplace (think Diablo 3's ill-fated Auction House). Not only does the developer not pay out anything (all money flowing through the auction house is coming from buyers of items), but they even take a "transaction fee" cut. All while continuing to own all the items being traded. There's no downside for the "house".

Except perhaps suddenly running afoul of gambling regulations if they can no longer argue there's no "prize" element to the gambling?

I see that definition expanding.

We're well past the point where virtual entitites are imaginable by the general populace.

Getting a virtual gun, creates an actual advantage in the game your are playing online.

While ultimate ownership of the code may be fraught, but practical day to day ownership and usage is not (unless you are fighting a particularly contrived case).

So, if a player does not have a title to anything in the game, the player has control over some items, and can sell this control? I suppose tokens in casinos also don't belong to players, but they are readily exchangeable for money.

On one hand, this may be enough to consider it gambling for money.

On the other hand, many games may expressly forbid selling in-game stuff. This is not easy to enforce, though, unless you forbid to drop and pick up items, or make in-game exchanges. A number of games uses exchange as a important "social" / "multiplayer" feature, but likely those are not slot-machine-like anyway.

It is extremely easy to enforce: just make items non-transferable, so they can only be gained by actual questing. As soon as an item is gained, it is permanently associated to a given account.

Done.

How would you prevent the sale of accounts?

Tie them to a really name and government issued photo id? Please note I hope that this does not happen but that is one logical (very scary) conclusion that regulators may reach when that question is asked.

It is called soul-bound in WoW.

I think that’s not the best defense.

I believe if I had a slot machine that paid out in free vacations instead of cash, there would be no doubt playing it is a form of gambling.

I think it’s that the micropayments don’t get a random return. When someone buys to complete a level it is a predictable outcome, not a gamble.

People get variable return on item drops, but you don’t generally pay with money for item drops, just time.

There is a one-step-removed way in which I think video games could be regarded as a kind of indirect or obscured gambling.

1-I pay to receive an in game item like a weapon

2-I use that investment to go out and kill monsters for treasure drops

3-I end up with some randomly variable items of value that are by definition valuable, because people will pay me for them, TOS doesn’t establish a thing’s market value.

But I think this would really require us rethinking or redefining a number of concepts.

I have no idea if there is any legal precedent for requiring resell value on a prize, but these "rare drops" definitely do constitute prizes on a human level. And they by definition DO economic value (even if you can't resell them) because people pay money specifically for a chance to win them.

If value of something is how much the market is willing to pay for it: it had value before you bought it, and none after (you can’t resell!). Is there a difference from buying an “experience”?

As an analogy - I can't resell performance enhancing drugs after I have taken them?

Would that not closely match this example, at least in terms of utility?

This is actually a rapidly developing area of law. There is a lawsuit brought by Washington State that is arguing that virtual credits, in connection with games of chance, constitutes "something of value" that is covered by the state's gambling laws.

If the state wins, it could result in an expansion of regulation of this type of mobile game.

Here's an article with some more detail.

https://www.geekwire.com/2018/game-show-network-hit-online-g...

That's interesting! Even though they are not legal tender (and cannot be exchanged for goods and services etc), the argument is that they are still OF VALUE for those who hold them.

> Why AREN'T certain games subject to the same regulations as slot machines?

The regulations were designed for casinos before video games became so popular and way before mobile games and micro-transactions even existed.

Example of gambling regulation for New Jersey: https://www.nj.gov/oag/ge/docs/Regulations/MergedRegulations...

> Is that a state-by-state regulation?

Yes. Delaware, Nevada, New Jersey and Pennsylvania allow gambling. But I guess that at any moment local or federal regulations could be created.

> And does the regulating code specifically mention physical machines?

There is specific regulations for casinos, for on-line gambling, for jackpots, sports betting, etc. e.g. CHAPTER 69O INTERNET AND MOBILE GAMING from the linked PDF

Example of definitions:

* "Authorized Internet or mobile game" means any game authorized by the Division for use with an Internet or mobile gaming system.

* "Client terminal" means any device that is used to interact with a gaming system for the purpose of conducting server-based gaming activity.

* "Data warehouse" means a system of one or more servers located in New Jersey for the purpose of storing transactions received from the primary gaming equipment.

* "Dormant account" means an Internet gaming account, which has had no patron initiated activity for a period of one year.

Video games are protected by the first amendment right to free speech and expression. Slot machines are gambling devices that take in and pay out money. The two aren't really comparable. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but the regulations on slot machines only apply when they're used in real money gambling. Presumably, if someone built a slot machine that didn't take in or dispense tokens, and could not be used in gambling in any way, it wouldn't be subject to those regulations. But obviously this is a moot point since a slot machine without a payout is just a glorified random number generator.

> if someone built a slot machine that didn't take in or dispense tokens, and could not be used in gambling in any way, it wouldn't be subject to those regulations

I did in the 1970's, and it's perfectly legal (roulette, not slots):

https://www.ebay.com/p/Las-Vegas-Roulette-Intellivision-1980...

Yeah, that's just not right. There are 3 questions to determine gambling: whether you pay something to play, whether there is a game of chance (a random number generator) and whether the game pays out something of value. Considering companies are making billions on virtual goods, I'd argue that a virtual good counts as a thing of value, and when tied to a random number generator (e.g., a loot box or virtual slot machine) then it's gambling (assuming it's pay to play).

I think where the connection to gambling falls down is the “pay to play” aspect.

That you are never forced to pay is a defining aspect of “freemium”. You are always given the choice to wait out the timer/watch an ad for your next upgrade/level/continue/bonus/lootbox, rather than pay.

Not necessarily. Right now the industry is largely unregulated, but that's more a question of enforcement than any sort of real legal protection.

In the US you can't build a slot machine that accepts money and dispenses tokens that have value. That's often how things operate in Japan, but the same model is generally illegal in the US.

It's questionable if spending real money on virtual currency to buy "loot boxes" that randomly give things of value is legal. And if that's legal, it's not obvious if changing the rate of rewards is legal.

In game items don't have value. If they did, then effectively all games with RNG mechanics would be banned. Heck, even the original Rogue would fall under that umbrella.

That depends on the game. I believe one big trend in gaming will be connecting in-game economies to real-world economies. That might happen by tokenizing in-game assets and allowing free trade via exchanges / auction sites.

Depends on the game. In multi player games where people can exchange items, people will pay real world money for other players items.

EX: People buying WoW gold.

> "buying WoW gold"

IIRC, Blizzard doesn't profit from that directly and explicitly prohibits it in their ToS.

That's simply the most well known example. Blizzard had a real money auction house in DIII which they got a cut of profits from virtual item sales so they clearly understand items have value. PLEX in eve online directly links real world money with their in world currency etc.

I could go on, but saying it's virtual is not necessarily enough to protect these companies.

They released their own PLEX clone ("Wow Tokens") a few years ago.

Certain forms of video game dynamics: e.g. some loot box mechanics have recently been identified as being covered by gambling regulations in some nations.

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018-04-25-now-belgium-de...

I’m not entirely up to date, but my impression was that as long as the rewards are not redeemable for cash, it’s fine.

> You've gotten me wondering: Why AREN'T certain games subject to the same regulations as slot machines?

Probably because the problem is not perceived as bad enough to get regulated yet. The industry was getting dangerously close to this when there were all those cases of kids racking up huge bills through in-app purchases on iPhones, but that has died down enough that it's not on the radar anymore. I think if the games industry gets too aggressive again, regulation will sweep in.

Great idea!

If a game has micro transactions, then treat it as gambling.

Problem solved.

Paying in games is extremely recent.

This does not hold to to scrutiny. The case that was appealed to the supreme Court that establishes that video games are protected by the First Amendment was challenging a law championed by a California Democrat, but was mostly overturned by liberal justices.

What video games have to do with "white idntity politics" is beyond me.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merch...

That's generic and not really convincing except to the already converted.

Getting into the concrete example of casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, on the other hand...

And yet the tech industry overwhelmingly supports Democrats? Partisan politics has nothing to do with the topic at hand. But, if you want to go there, I might suggest that Cato is a libertarian organization and libertarianism is about the rights of the individual to make their own choices rather than having the state dictate those choices. Bringing the Koch brothers into a debate over addictive screens is just silly.

Your "translation" is clearly out of tone for Hacker News.

Both sides play identity politics, they just focus on different identities. Most people are blind to the identity politics of their own party because those identities feel natural or correct to them, making the identities less obviously visible. (Or, inversely, the identities of the 'other' party feel obviously wrong, making them more jarring and stand out as 'playing identity politics'.)

Tone is relative. Although the words individually are not incindiary, the post being replied to was equally incindiary in nature. Subtlety in verbal attacks does not have true distinction, other than one having (weak) deniability of malevolence. Arguably, it’s because of this it is more dishonest.

Funny thing is some games are designed to be boring but still addictive, so that you will pay to skip playing the boring game. It totally blows my mind that people will pay to not play a game.

Sry what? You have no issue working in that industry because those games are 'boring'? But you do not have any issue that you create something which is literally boring and only there for other people to put there money in and play never again (because it is so boring) or lose everything?

> You have no issue working in that industry because those games are 'boring'?

Not because they are boring, but because they are less addictive than they can be. So they are "boring" in comparison. If we were allowed to use all tricks that mobile and on-line games do it will be really bad for society as it will create more addiction.

It is like Coca-Cola. Even that so much sugar makes it problematic, I find it better that at least does not include cocaine like it did in 1891. Does that make Coca-Cola good? No, it does not. But I find that makes it a lesser evil. Even that cocaine-less Coke is more "boring" nowadays, it is the right thing to do.

I don't know. I have never seen anyone buying more coca cola on a weekend than i would be able to afford with my salary.

I have seen people putting shit ton of money into those machines and they lost easily 100,- Euros per Hour?

I'm sure there is always a white/gray/black thing going on but i do put a slot machine at the very end of black not in gray or white at all.

Coca Cola and the water stealing and the addiction is btw. an additional example for something not that good, it does not make a slot machine any better.

Can you recommend any literature on the topic of these "tricks"? If you're not in the industry, awareness is probably the best weapon against these practices.

> Can you recommend any literature on the topic of these "tricks"?

I am talking about basic stuff like:

* Push notifications reminding you that you should play the game.

* Let you win some money but then lose it unless you make a payment.

* A bar that fills faster at the beginning and then starts to fill slower. So it looks like you are closer to a goal that you actually are.

* Show a deck of cards that instead of the 52 standard cards, expected by the players, has another configuration that makes you lose more often.

etc.

Any mobile games video - like https://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014450/Behavioral-Economics-a... - has a lot of forbidden techniques for on-line gambling.

Even more basic than this -- games as far back as the original Zelda use it (and I'm sure further) -- is intermittent variable reward[0]. This little cognitive meathook has been almost weaponized at this point.

[0]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement#Intermittent_rei...

I'm not who you're responding to, but I like this longread from the Verge about the specific design of slot machines that fuel addictive behaviour by users:

https://www.theverge.com/2015/5/6/8544303/casino-slot-machin...

> As a result, modern slots pay out on approximately 45 percent of all spins, instead of the 3 percent of traditional slots.

I do not get this. slots pay out (RTP Return To Player) is around 90%. The article mixes volatility with RTP.

> Lower-volatility games often have greater appeal in 'locals markets' than in destination resort markets like Las Vegas or Atlantic City

This looks correct.

> During "flow," time speeds up (hours feel like minutes) or slows down (reactions can be made instantly) and the mind reaches a state of almost euphoric equilibrium.

Most sensible regulations force you to send reminders to the players that interrupt this flow. On-line betting usually has harder regulations, as to play in a casino you need to physically get there but on-line is always available.

Usually in high regulated markets each spin should last at least 3 seconds. This is so you cannot get a fast continuous flow, but the pace is forcefully slowed down.

Physical casino slots and on-line slots are slightly different as products and regulation wise.

> "People only have so much leisure time and there’s a lot of activity on iPhones"

Slot machines are competing against Candy Crush (and Royal Charm Slots from the same company), Netflix, YouTube, etc.

> Eyal criticized slot machines for what he said was a business model dependent on addicted players — "that industry, I have a problem with," he said.

And the solution is to regulated it in a way that the most addictive aspects are not possible to implement. Or to prohibit it completely, not just to move it underground. If anyone expects that the industry is going to regulate itself they are for a hard ride. No industry does that for real.

Very cool profession, where can I learn more about the tech behind the gambling industry, got any good recommendations? Are any start-ups shaking up the traditional slot machine gambling industry? Is it still run by shadowy Mafia types like we see in movies?

I'm waiting for you guys to implement a separate "screen" or "application" on all slots, which is a cryptocurrency or Forex or CFD (or even pretend "securities") client hooking up to the casinos' central exchange system, and the casino takes no positions long or short but just charges a very small % tx fee on each transaction. If it's cryptocurrency, then have 1:1 conversion between cryptocurrency and the various chip species each representing said currency (like Doge chips, Litecoin chips, Bitcoin chips, Ethereum chips, etc) so the incentive to trade on the slots is that the player can then gamble the objects of trade directly. The keys (or casino crypto exchange authentication data) can be stored on smart card and can be carried around by the gambler. Then it's a matter of having various slots and tables which accept these other cryptos in addition to their existing dollar variants. It's like having Euro machines and tables, Renminbi machines and tables, etc.