So, like… Every single game? I can’t think of a single game made after the 90s that doesn’t have some elements of addictiveness designed into the game. Like every time you are shown an XP reward for doing a thing? That’s an addictive element designed to hook you.
By that logic everything is addictive and people indulging in it should be considered addicts. And I mean everything, for example: playing sports, singing, painting minis, fantasizing about muscular men, and even cleaning your house.
But that would be kind of meaningless, and would add nothing to the discussion. Luckily the discussion is not about that, it is around games with elements specifically designed to be much more addictive.
Good example would be Bloons TD 6. Is the game itself addictive? I wouldn’t say so, it’s just and ordinary (though well made) game. Again, you can still get addicted to just the play loop of it, but that’s not the point. Are the daily rewards and daily challenges in this game addictive? Yes, their purpose is literally to get you to think you have something do in that game and log in every day to do them. Think about how much less addictive that game would be if those mechanics would be removed. Would people still log in every day to play? Some people yes (third time now, everything can be an addiction), but a lot of people would play much less, and possibly in much more focused sessions (as in not half an hour everyday, but two hours every weekend).
Everything can be addictive. That doesn’t mean everything is designed that way. The key words here are intentionally designed. And nearly all modern games have intentionally addictive design elements, from how the UI is presented, down to how the game feels. Most major game studios literally have psychologists on staff for this very purpose, while smaller studios copy a lot of the same ideas and elements into their games without even necessarily knowing the things they are copying to be like The Current Big Hit were originally designed to be addiction machines (aka Skinner boxes).
You’re right, so what really matters is WHY it’s designed that way. Is it because it’s meant to be fun? That’s okay. Is it to somehow get more money from you? Not okay.
As the parent of a tiny child this is great to see. I couldn’t give less of a shit about violent contents in games and ratings based on that sort of unproven rubbish. However games that deliberately implement dark patterns are literally designed to be dangerously manipulative and that I want to be able to make informed decisions about.
Purchases of in-game content: games with time-limited or quantity-limited offers will be classified with a PEGI 12, games with NFTs or blockchain-related mechanisms will be PEGI 18.
Paid random items: the default rating will be PEGI 16 if the game contains paid random items (and in some cases they can be a PEGI 18).
Play-by-appointment: mechanisms that reward returning to the game (e.g. daily quests) will get a PEGI 7. If these mechanisms punish players for not returning (e.g. by losing content or reducing progress) they will become PEGI 12.
Safe online gameplay: if games contain entirely unrestricted communication features (e.g. no blocking or reporting), they will be PEGI 18.
That wording sounds really unspecific. I wonder how the first two poins will be interpreted with regard to games where the paying for gambling tokens involves multiple steps of conversion. In particular, Genshin Impact and similar games, where the paid currency first has to be converted (at a 1:1 rate) to a general currency that can be earned by engaging with the completely free progression systems.
It doesn’t need to be too specific, in that PEGI actually reviews the products it rates. You get to send them a preview and then talk to them about the rating.
I also think some of the stuff Eurogamer is reporting is weird, or maybe PEGI is just not aware of some tools? For instance,
A game will be able to reduce this PEGI rating to 7 if it contains in-game controls that allow you to turn spending off by default. As Bosmans noted, these systems don’t really exist yet, but the hope is this change will incentivise them to be developed.
Is not actually true. Many games do include turning spending off based on the user’s reported age or whether they’re on a child account (Nintendo and Sony both support this as a feature, I believe).
So there is some confusing stuff going on here, but it all seems mostly reasonable to me.
My trust in PEGI’s ability to properly review games has decreased significantly after Balatro got a PEGI-18 rating for some real horseshit reasons. This is a good direction, my concern is with the execution.
Myeh. I think they mostly do fine, but they’re certainly not perfect. These are reasonable, but some of the stuff they’re saying about it is factually incorrect, too (like I said, there ARE age-based commerce lockouts in games already despite their statements).
All they need to do to be functional is have a modicum of consistency and at least be reactive to feedback. The Balatro thing sucked, but they did correct it. Some of these changes seem to be specifically a reaction to the Balatro thing, in fact.
Play-by-appointment is the gateway to all the other anti features, and not being about to focus on studying because you’re worried about your dailies shouldn’t be something 12 year olds (or anyone, really) are exposed to
See, I have a real issue with the “12 year olds (or anyone, really)” bit there in juxtaposition to all the pushback on OS age verification.
The gaming community has spent the past decade and change doing the exact same moral panic routine that anti-game violence crusaders did in the 90s and are in the process of finding out why it’s a bad idea.
Age ratings and content warnings? Awesome. Gating content and design concepts on moral grounds? Not that.
I mean, for one thing, that’s a misrepresentation. You don’t need a behavioral scientist to figure out that “come back tomorrow for another reward” is a good engagement tool. For another, it’s a misnomer, because that’s not a dark pattern, it’s a deliberate, out-in-the-open design that is transparent about how it works.
But do I think that people freaking out about engagement tools they don’t like while giving functionally similar ones they do like a pass is a moral panic?
100%, absolutely yes.
There’s a reason why the PEGI rep talking to Eurogamer clarifies that this specific wording would absolutely have unintended consequences and they’re limiting the age ratings impact and leaning on content descriptors instead:
“There was some discussion here,” he added. “Some people pointed out that these are features that make the game engaging and fun - this is enriching the game experience similar to a cliffhanger in a Netflix series. So we mostly want to inform parents about this, because there’s no reason why we should give Animal Crossing a very high rating. So this is going to stick to a PEGI 7 but it will have a descriptor that explains this. The exact language of the descriptors still needs to be figured out.”
So yes. Slippery slope, moral panic, will somebody think of the children stuff.
As a third side to the discussion, I do have my reservations about age verification, but then I don’t mind such mechanics being banned completely. PEGI, to my mind, severely underplays the issues involved.
It’s extremely easy to cross the line between “oh, you’re back! Here’s something small and nice to set you for a good gaming session” and “oh no, you didn’t come to the game, now your weekly/monthly streak is gone and the main reward you wanted and all your friends have is now forever unattainable”.
Most games, unfortunately, opt for the latter, focusing on FOMO and driving anxiety as the key factor to force people to play. Games should be something unimportant, something that is there and waits for you to finish with what matters. Not a second job that it became for many.
…and yes, battle pass is also an engagement mechanic of a similar kind and needs to be eliminated for much the same reasons.
Definition: A gaming dark pattern is something that is deliberately added to a game to cause an unwanted negative experience for the player with a positive outcome for the game developer.
No it hasn’t. Some site not knowing their dark patterns from their anti-features (or deliberately mushing them both together for marketing purposes) doesn’t mean it’s not a misnomer.
I mean, I’m open to it becoming the new standard at some point. There is no coming back from the incorrect meaning of “metagame”, or at least of “meta”, so it’s no longer a misnomer.
But this? Nah, it’s gonna take a minute, if it ever happens. “Anti-feature” has become a buzzword in midcore techie spaces itself, so I don’t know that extending “dark pattern” to (incorrectly) include every undesirable feature will ever take. Plus, what would you call actual dark patterns at that point?
Minecraft has chat moderation/reporting by default and always on in Bedrock, so unless pressed about unmoderated servers it looks good from outside. More of hassle for smaller devs, for whom the line is not clear between adding the just block/report/disable chat options or 1984 surveillance to pass it
Weirdly enough probably the old pre-pg13 movie ratings system. It wasn’t perfect but it did make sense, mostly because it was generally a good bit looser on a lot of things allowing more wiggle room for context. Fun fact if memory serves right the first two Indiana Jones films are PG.
A detailed rating system is prone to fail. I know 7 y/o who are more mature than 16y/o. This is an extreme case. But development differences +/-1 year are very common. So maybe we should stick to “child”, “adolescent”, “adult”.
The rating system isn’t meant to be taken literally though. It’s expected that parents make an informed choice based on the maturity of their child. The ratings are recommendations and as far as I know only actually enforced by stores/sellers and cinemas.
If its the actual content theyre worried about they all should. It doesnt matter what game youre playing there will eventually be a 6 year old shouting Nr and Ft at the top of his voice.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Rules
1. Submissions have to be related to games
Video games, tabletop, or otherwise. Posts not related to games will be deleted.
This community is focused on games, of all kinds. Any news item or discussion should be related to gaming in some way.
2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil
No bigotry, hardline stance. Try not to get too heated when entering into a discussion or debate.
We are here to talk and discuss about one of our passions, not fight or be exposed to hate. Posts or responses that are hateful will be deleted to keep the atmosphere good. If repeatedly violated, not only will the comment be deleted but a ban will be handed out as well. We judge each case individually.
3. No excessive self-promotion
Try to keep it to 10% self-promotion / 90% other stuff in your post history.
This is to prevent people from posting for the sole purpose of promoting their own website or social media account.
4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
This community is mostly for discussion and news. Remember to search for the thing you’re submitting before posting to see if it’s already been posted.
We want to keep the quality of posts high. Therefore, memes, funny videos, low-effort posts and reposts are not allowed. We prohibit giveaways because we cannot be sure that the person holding the giveaway will actually do what they promise.
5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW
Make sure to mark your stuff or it may be removed.
No one wants to be spoiled. Therefore, always mark spoilers. Similarly mark NSFW, in case anyone is browsing in a public space or at work.
6. No linking to piracy
Don’t share it here, there are other places to find it. Discussion of piracy is fine.
We don’t want us moderators or the admins of lemmy.world to get in trouble for linking to piracy. Therefore, any link to piracy will be removed. Discussion of it is of course allowed.
A great step in the right direction if you ask me.
So, like… Every single game? I can’t think of a single game made after the 90s that doesn’t have some elements of addictiveness designed into the game. Like every time you are shown an XP reward for doing a thing? That’s an addictive element designed to hook you.
I dare you tell me an addictive element in Terraria.
“Being Terraria.”
By that logic everything is addictive and people indulging in it should be considered addicts. And I mean everything, for example: playing sports, singing, painting minis, fantasizing about muscular men, and even cleaning your house.
But that would be kind of meaningless, and would add nothing to the discussion. Luckily the discussion is not about that, it is around games with elements specifically designed to be much more addictive.
Good example would be Bloons TD 6. Is the game itself addictive? I wouldn’t say so, it’s just and ordinary (though well made) game. Again, you can still get addicted to just the play loop of it, but that’s not the point. Are the daily rewards and daily challenges in this game addictive? Yes, their purpose is literally to get you to think you have something do in that game and log in every day to do them. Think about how much less addictive that game would be if those mechanics would be removed. Would people still log in every day to play? Some people yes (third time now, everything can be an addiction), but a lot of people would play much less, and possibly in much more focused sessions (as in not half an hour everyday, but two hours every weekend).
Everything can be addictive. That doesn’t mean everything is designed that way. The key words here are intentionally designed. And nearly all modern games have intentionally addictive design elements, from how the UI is presented, down to how the game feels. Most major game studios literally have psychologists on staff for this very purpose, while smaller studios copy a lot of the same ideas and elements into their games without even necessarily knowing the things they are copying to be like The Current Big Hit were originally designed to be addiction machines (aka Skinner boxes).
The Long Dark?
The way loot and looting work in most survival games generally are designed to be addictive, yes.
With the long dark, that’s like saying free camping in the wilderness is addictive 😅
Also, now I’m thinking of other games too. I am Toast, Human Fall Flat. Kaizo Mario maybe even?
You’re right, so what really matters is WHY it’s designed that way. Is it because it’s meant to be fun? That’s okay. Is it to somehow get more money from you? Not okay.
I want to see the icons.
AI can be a bot with a tool.
Addiction can be a kid with dollar signs for eyes as they’re infront of their phone.
Unmonitored online communication can be a kid who barricaded their room from the world.
That’s the right direction I think.
Making an informed choice is important. If you do it anyway, who the hell are we to be everybodys parents.
But maybe that’s wrong of me to think that?
I think that’s another discussion altogether. Making the decision possible at all is a fundamental win to start with. I’m for it. 👌
In Italy it’s illegal to sell PEGI 18 media to minors. I wish it was enforced.
As the parent of a tiny child this is great to see. I couldn’t give less of a shit about violent contents in games and ratings based on that sort of unproven rubbish. However games that deliberately implement dark patterns are literally designed to be dangerously manipulative and that I want to be able to make informed decisions about.
Fucking loot boxes.
Original article by PEGI: https://pegi.info/news/pegi-expands-age-rating-criteria-interactive-risk-categories
That wording sounds really unspecific. I wonder how the first two poins will be interpreted with regard to games where the paying for gambling tokens involves multiple steps of conversion. In particular, Genshin Impact and similar games, where the paid currency first has to be converted (at a 1:1 rate) to a general currency that can be earned by engaging with the completely free progression systems.
It doesn’t need to be too specific, in that PEGI actually reviews the products it rates. You get to send them a preview and then talk to them about the rating.
I also think some of the stuff Eurogamer is reporting is weird, or maybe PEGI is just not aware of some tools? For instance,
Is not actually true. Many games do include turning spending off based on the user’s reported age or whether they’re on a child account (Nintendo and Sony both support this as a feature, I believe).
So there is some confusing stuff going on here, but it all seems mostly reasonable to me.
My trust in PEGI’s ability to properly review games has decreased significantly after Balatro got a PEGI-18 rating for some real horseshit reasons. This is a good direction, my concern is with the execution.
Myeh. I think they mostly do fine, but they’re certainly not perfect. These are reasonable, but some of the stuff they’re saying about it is factually incorrect, too (like I said, there ARE age-based commerce lockouts in games already despite their statements).
All they need to do to be functional is have a modicum of consistency and at least be reactive to feedback. The Balatro thing sucked, but they did correct it. Some of these changes seem to be specifically a reaction to the Balatro thing, in fact.
Isn’t the issue here that fifa fc should also be 18?
Well, we will see what they do in practice. I think it’s a step in te right direction.
deleted by creator
Play-by-appointment is the gateway to all the other anti features, and not being about to focus on studying because you’re worried about your dailies shouldn’t be something 12 year olds (or anyone, really) are exposed to
See, I have a real issue with the “12 year olds (or anyone, really)” bit there in juxtaposition to all the pushback on OS age verification.
The gaming community has spent the past decade and change doing the exact same moral panic routine that anti-game violence crusaders did in the 90s and are in the process of finding out why it’s a bad idea.
Age ratings and content warnings? Awesome. Gating content and design concepts on moral grounds? Not that.
You think that identifying dark patterns that are literally designed by psychologists to be as addictive as possible is moral panic?
Yes.
I mean, for one thing, that’s a misrepresentation. You don’t need a behavioral scientist to figure out that “come back tomorrow for another reward” is a good engagement tool. For another, it’s a misnomer, because that’s not a dark pattern, it’s a deliberate, out-in-the-open design that is transparent about how it works.
But do I think that people freaking out about engagement tools they don’t like while giving functionally similar ones they do like a pass is a moral panic?
100%, absolutely yes.
There’s a reason why the PEGI rep talking to Eurogamer clarifies that this specific wording would absolutely have unintended consequences and they’re limiting the age ratings impact and leaning on content descriptors instead:
So yes. Slippery slope, moral panic, will somebody think of the children stuff.
As a third side to the discussion, I do have my reservations about age verification, but then I don’t mind such mechanics being banned completely. PEGI, to my mind, severely underplays the issues involved.
It’s extremely easy to cross the line between “oh, you’re back! Here’s something small and nice to set you for a good gaming session” and “oh no, you didn’t come to the game, now your weekly/monthly streak is gone and the main reward you wanted and all your friends have is now forever unattainable”.
Most games, unfortunately, opt for the latter, focusing on FOMO and driving anxiety as the key factor to force people to play. Games should be something unimportant, something that is there and waits for you to finish with what matters. Not a second job that it became for many.
…and yes, battle pass is also an engagement mechanic of a similar kind and needs to be eliminated for much the same reasons.
Patterns don’t have to be dark to be problematic.
For video games, the definition on this site that catalogs them has become the common meaning.
https://www.darkpattern.games/
No it hasn’t. Some site not knowing their dark patterns from their anti-features (or deliberately mushing them both together for marketing purposes) doesn’t mean it’s not a misnomer.
I mean, I’m open to it becoming the new standard at some point. There is no coming back from the incorrect meaning of “metagame”, or at least of “meta”, so it’s no longer a misnomer.
But this? Nah, it’s gonna take a minute, if it ever happens. “Anti-feature” has become a buzzword in midcore techie spaces itself, so I don’t know that extending “dark pattern” to (incorrectly) include every undesirable feature will ever take. Plus, what would you call actual dark patterns at that point?
Lol you’re just wrong. Language evolves and you can’t stop it
So if Pokémon Pocket was released after this revision, would it be labelled PEGI 16?
Pointless but good to spread awareness. But I hardly think it is going to have an impact if the parrents doesn’t care…
maayybe games with addictive elements shouldd be higher rated. Does nothing, but nice, though !
Does the means that interplayer communication like in Minecraft or other games would push it to PEGI18?
Minecraft has chat moderation/reporting by default and always on in Bedrock, so unless pressed about unmoderated servers it looks good from outside. More of hassle for smaller devs, for whom the line is not clear between adding the just block/report/disable chat options or 1984 surveillance to pass it
Show me a rating system that actually makes sense.
Weirdly enough probably the old pre-pg13 movie ratings system. It wasn’t perfect but it did make sense, mostly because it was generally a good bit looser on a lot of things allowing more wiggle room for context. Fun fact if memory serves right the first two Indiana Jones films are PG.
A detailed rating system is prone to fail. I know 7 y/o who are more mature than 16y/o. This is an extreme case. But development differences +/-1 year are very common. So maybe we should stick to “child”, “adolescent”, “adult”.
The rating system isn’t meant to be taken literally though. It’s expected that parents make an informed choice based on the maturity of their child. The ratings are recommendations and as far as I know only actually enforced by stores/sellers and cinemas.
No
:(
Unfiltered communication gets an 18 rating, but loot boxes get a
1216 😮💨In app purchases are 12, loot boxes are 16 or 18.
You’re right. I shouldn’t be reading articles that early.
I’d imagine that very few games would be given an 18 due to the unfiltered chat.
Surely they all have a block and a report function at the very least (even if they do nothing about reports).
If its the actual content theyre worried about they all should. It doesnt matter what game youre playing there will eventually be a 6 year old shouting Nr and Ft at the top of his voice.
Lottery tickets are usually 16+ too. It’s probably kicked after that
Pointless