I wonder if there is a business to be made out of taking these pay to play mobile games and straight up cloning them (not ripping off the graphics, that would land one in legal hot water, but just making the exact same game) and sell them for a one off payment. If there were companies that did that, and they would be known for making high quality puzzle games that are not pay to play, I would buy from them without even trying out their new games (after they gained my trust with the first few games). Technically it would be easy (most of these games are simple), you need graphics people who don't mind just grinding out content without needing to be very artsy, so I would imagine part of the lost revenue that the lootbox companies do get, could be offset by not having to spend a bunch of time thinking about what sort of game you really want to make and make decisions about gameplay etc. Just copy from existing games and sell to the 'don't like pay for play' crowd.

Maybe there just arent' many of us who don't mind paying for games as long as we don't have to buy hearts and diamonds and coins and what not.

I think a tell-tale feature of manipulative games is Farmville-style time-gating. They structure their progress around meaningless actions like clicking upgrade buttons, but you can only press that button every couple hours. So playing optimally isn't so much about strategy or skill, but more about incorporating the game into your daily routine.

The intent is of course to form a habit, so that players habitually play the game no matter if it is still fun. Combine that with a good reward system that gives you positive reinforcement at random intervals, and you get something that is designed to addict you to the game.

Why is this kind of manipulation bad but RNG-gated content, such as in most roguelikes, which are loved by lots of people, not bad? These value judgements are always arbitrary and hiding the biases of the speaker.

You, personally, don't like time-gated content. That's fine. But it's another thing entirely to say that because you don't like it it's morally wrong. Tons of people have no problem with it and in fact enjoy being limited by how much time they can play a game per day and to slowly build up their progress over time.

Plus, for many games these things are this way for multiple reasons. For instance, Genshin Impact, a very popular game released recently has time-gated content in the way you mentioned. But it's also a game made in China, where there are rules stating that kids can't play games for too many hours during a single day. In such an environment, time-gating is a perfect solution for both the legal problem of not encouraging people to play for too long in a single day, but also as a way to prevent people from levelling too fast beyond what the game has to offer. In this latter case it's just another way of keeping people engaged until you release new content.

It depends on the rogue-like. I first noticed this addictive quality in the original Diablo. Once I took a couple psych 101 courses, it became pretty clear that Diablo was addicting because of the random loot drops. In other words, they were a variable interval schedule of reinforcement. You don't know when you next good loot drop is going to be, so keep playing indefinitely. (In this sense, this system is identical to a slot machine) Diablo was the first game that I truly "lost hours" to. It's not as if I didn't play other games for long periods of time, none had ever dilated my time or put me in a haze before Diablo. The next game to do this (for me) was Diablo II, then much later, Borderlands.

I've seen a lot of people struggle with this concept over the years. so I want to clarify a few things:

- People equivocate the word "addicting." That is, they switch between two meanings: "specific behavioral addiction, as defined by a schedule of reinforcement," vs. "something I enjoy a lot of an spend a lot of time doing."

- I've also seen people confuse any kind of reward in a video game (eg: beating a boss, winning in multiplayer, obtaining a high score, etc.) as being "addicting" and equivalent to various skinner box techniques noted above. (schedules of reinforcement, time gating, etc.) The problem is of course, that these things are not equivalent at all. Someone addicted to Space Invaders high scores is very much not the same as someone who threw their life away to play World of Warcraft.

- Not all games that have loot drops should be considered addicting in this sense. I would say that in hindsight, this is pretty clear. Diablo II is very addicting, but look at the forums, and check out some gameplay videos. No one is highlighting the gameplay, or boss fights, or music, or setting. They're all talking about loot drops. Whatever the developer's original intent, the gameplay of Diablo II is loot drops. Compare this with something like Dark Souls. Yes, there is loot in this game, and enemies do drop it. But except for a few achievement hunters, no one is talking about all their time spent grinding in Dark Souls. Really, the core of Dark Souls' gameplay revolves around overcoming the various challenges presented to the player.

> For instance, Genshin Impact, a very popular game released recently has time-gated content in the way you mentioned. But it's also a game made in China, where there are rules stating that kids can't play games for too many hours during a single day.

That's an interesting point I've never heard of before, thanks for bringing it up.

Still, I think there's more to tease apart about time-gating. As a high-schooler, I spent plenty of time on time-gated games (AstroWars and OGame). From that experience I know this mechanic alone is very addictive, and I make a conscious decision to avoid these types of games now. I had my fun (particularly social type, my fiends were hooked in just as much as I was). And, I don't consider this mechanic to be a problem alone. What matters is why it's there. Is it to make the game fun, in its particular way? Or is it to maximize the players' exposure to monetization opportunities?

The root of my point is this: particular mechanics a game employs don't matter; what matters is why those particular mechanics were chosen. Intent, not engineering.