For what it's worth, he didn't say nothing was wrong with it. He just said he doesn't really consider it to be a scam. Similarly, I doubt he would consider it to be murder (even though murder is presumably also wrong).

If something isn't quite a scam, it's not a scam. That said, there's definitely room to contest the notion that this isn't one.

Fair point, though I suppose I've made it clear what side of the definitional fence I'm on for this issue. If looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and there's hidden hooks in the contract designed specifically to unwittingly lighten a person's metaphorical wallet, it's a duck with a bright, neon "SCAM" sign.

Exploit: - take advantage of somebody: to take selfish or unfair advantage of a person or situation, usually for personal gain - use something for benefit: to use or develop something in order to gain a benefit

Scam: - dishonest scheme: a scheme for making money by dishonest means - trick somebody: to obtain money or other goods from somebody by dishonest means

I was contending that I felt like the tactics being used in these games were shady and questionable? Yes. Dishonest? No.

However, as I pointed out above, I've changed my tune a little bit after delving deeper into the article and the HN comments. Without question, I should've done that before commenting in the first place.