Ethics in gamemaking

HidetoKoudanshi

  • Posts: 112
My use of the word "prohibition" was rather spirited and over-the-top, I must grant you. My apologies for that.

If you don't want these types of games made illegal, then what do you expect or want for them seeing as you don't think they should be made the way they are? You do know making people feel really uncomfortable/bad for making games like this, and doing so until they pretty much stop making them, is almost like prohibition, yes? Only instead of the government doing it, now it's peer pressure. "Good game designers don't put in IAPs of that kind. *tsk-tsk-tsk* *look of disapproval*"

You say, "Saying that people have a right to choose therefore you're justified in giving people any choices they want is wholly a fallacy." As long as the choices I offer are completely legal for the area I live in and am offering my product in, how is it a fallacy that people should expect to be able to have any of the choices I might offer? And if we're not heading towards a nanny-state-of-mind in gaming, then how is it you want to peer pressure people into not offering gaming options you personally disagree with?

I'm going to do that evil boiling-down thing, but let's boil it down. Either you want people to have the complete and utter freedom to exercise the rights given to them by the country in which they reside, including having access to games made in a style you personally think is exploitative, or you do not think people can be trusted with such unfettered freedom and we should discourage game makers from giving them said freedoms. If it is some other third, fourth, or even more options, please correct me by saying them. This is merely what I'm reading from you. What I hear is, "People are too gullible or lazy and it's too easy to trick them into spending money they shouldn't so we should seriously discourage people from making games that include money-spending as ways to enhance the gaming experience so players don't fall into those traps." You may certainly hold such an opinion, assuming you do, so long as you don't use that opinion to stop me or others from doing exactly what we please within the confines of the law and the abilities of ourselves and/or our game design software.

Definitely correct me where I'm wrong. I want to be wrong here. I don't want to think this is how you feel, that peer pressure and claiming moral high ground should be valid tools in game design evolution.
If I ever commission you for code work, please know that I understand how commissioning works. You must get paid first before you will code anything for me. Only once you are paid the agreed-upon price, will you begin coding for me. I respect artists and coders. You deserve to be paid for your hard efforts.

Blob

  • *
  • Posts: 721
If you don't want these types of games made illegal, then what do you expect or want for them seeing as you don't think they should be made the way they are? You do know making people feel really uncomfortable/bad for making games like this, and doing so until they pretty much stop making them, is almost like prohibition, yes? Only instead of the government doing it, now it's peer pressure. "Good game designers don't put in IAPs of that kind. *tsk-tsk-tsk* *look of disapproval*"
What a silly question, as if the only way change happens in the world is through political mandates. Public perception can change in all sorts of ways, and when they do the market/other people follow suit. For instance, there's a growing awareness of problems in games like DRM that aptly disincentivizes companies from using it. If DRM ever dies out we won't be thanking a law for that, we'll be thanking a growing awareness in the public. My goal isn't to shame people out of doing anything, my goal is for people to understand why something might not be the best idea. If you told someone smoking is bad because it increases cancer risks you wouldn't be peer-pressuring them out of smoking, you'd be informing them and giving them reason not to. The case for IAPs being bad is less direct than smoking being bad is, but the point stands.

I'm also not going to *tsk-tsk* people or use the No-True-Scotsman fallacy to stop people from doing something, I'm going to elaborate on my feelings.
You say, "Saying that people have a right to choose therefore you're justified in giving people any choices they want is wholly a fallacy." As long as the choices I offer are completely legal for the area I live in and am offering my product in, how is it a fallacy that people should expect to be able to have any of the choices I might offer? And if we're not heading towards a nanny-state-of-mind in gaming, then how is it you want to peer pressure people into not offering gaming options you personally disagree with?
I didn't say it's a fallacy that people can expect those choices, I said it was a fallacy to think you're justified in offering something to someone just because they legally can make that choice. It used to be legal to sell kids cigarettes and let them work in extremely dangerous working facilities, that doesn't mean you don't need to think about the moral implications of giving people that choice. This is an extreme example when compared to Free to Play games, but again, the point still applies.

You keep using this word peer-pressure, and if you really want to you can frame anyone stating their contrary beliefs to someone else as peer-pressure for dramatic effect, but it's an entirely normal, acceptable, and human thing to simply think differently than someone else.

I'm going to do that evil boiling-down thing, but let's boil it down. Either you want people to have the complete and utter freedom to exercise the rights given to them by the country in which they reside, including having access to games made in a style you personally think is exploitative, or you do not think people can be trusted with such unfettered freedom and we should discourage game makers from giving them said freedoms. If it is some other third, fourth, or even more options, please correct me by saying them. This is merely what I'm reading from you. What I hear is, "People are too gullible or lazy and it's too easy to trick them into spending money they shouldn't so we should seriously discourage people from making games that include money-spending as ways to enhance the gaming experience so players don't fall into those traps." You may certainly hold such an opinion, assuming you do, so long as you don't use that opinion to stop me or others from doing exactly what we please within the confines of the law and the abilities of ourselves and/or our game design software.
Neither of your two scenarios apply. You simply don't need to think that something is good in order to think it should be legal, nor do you need to think that things you don't like or agree with should be illegal. Sometimes people say things that I think are bad, that doesn't mean I think people should be censored from saying those things. Hopefully you can agree with that. There should be no question that people can be exploited at their own expense, even with games, and those are instances of wrong-doing. I don't beat up people who disagree with me, I'm not sure why you'd think I'd ever try to force my opinions onto others.

EDIT: Upon rereading the first scenario you mentioned actually does apply.

Definitely correct me where I'm wrong. I want to be wrong here. I don't want to think this is how you feel, that peer pressure and claiming moral high ground should be valid tools in game design evolution.
My belief is that people have opinions about how things should and shouldn't work, and if others find those beliefs reasonable they catch on. This is how all of human society has evolved, I'm not sure why it would be any different with games.


EDIT: This post was rushed and I'm not completely satisfied with it. I made some comments which missed intentions.

« Last Edit: June 23, 2014, 11:57:18 pm by Blob »

HidetoKoudanshi

  • Posts: 112
This is very much a very polite "agree to disagree" situation. You disagree with my view very politely, which is so rare on the internet these days. Thank you for that. I think my problem here is taking a very politely worded, "I don't think that is a good way to do things." and instead seeing, "Don't do it. Good designers don't do that sort of thing."

The proper response is not to argue because you're not really being argumentative. You're just providing a contrary view, as you said. When I look on my own words, I'm almost falling into censorship, almost suggesting that you shouldn't tell people, "I don't think that is a good way to do things." because it makes me feel like you might stifle creativity just because it's a type of creativity you personally don't like. The better answer is to listen to your ideas politely, form my own judgement of and based around them, and then push forward with whatever my conclusion turns out to be, whether agreeable or disagreeable to your original objections.

Thanks for the very thoughtful responses. It helped me see the flaw was more in my own logic than yours, in this particular instance. ("You shouldn't tell people politely not to do stuff like that as it stifles creativity." That's pretty much politely telling you to shut up. My sincere apologies for that.)
If I ever commission you for code work, please know that I understand how commissioning works. You must get paid first before you will code anything for me. Only once you are paid the agreed-upon price, will you begin coding for me. I respect artists and coders. You deserve to be paid for your hard efforts.

Blob

  • *
  • Posts: 721
Thanks for the kind words. I'd say a post like yours is even more rare.