Forum Discussion
- To OP.
I truly appreciate this post. It's intelligent and well thought out.
At the risk of fanning the flames of discord around here any further, I'd say this explains why EA is doing this AND why it's likely we will never see another grind it/earn it event ever again.
Our brains a wired to reward us with dopamine (I think that's the right brain chemical, could definitely be wrong though!) when we succeed or even MOSTLY succeed. We get nothing if we don't succeed. It's how our brains learn. Unfortunately, you can't "learn" to win at gambling. This is also how a gambling addict gets addicted in the first place.
From a strictly business standpoint, this is very clever of EA. They pretty much already have an addicted user base and they know it. Why not capture that gold egg laying goose by using our own brains against us? - http://i.imgur.com/rmWmCZK.gif
- First of all:
Thank you for one of the most interesting posts I have yet read on this forum.
Here's my two cents:
While you give many valid points, I beg to differ.
The problem is not the changed system of inventives/rewards.
As you yourself show so eloquently, even gambles/games of chance can be fulfilling if the dev handels the rewards right.
You mention the giving out of small prizes, the brushing up of the actual odds to make them appear much better and the impression of having _almost_ won one of the main prizes.
You forgot to mention that the best games give the player a feeling of control.
What is the difference between RL and the fantasy world of the game?
Two things: immediate gratification and the feeling of having everything under control (and thus the conviction that there is a solution for everything).
These are the reason why we play: every action is immediately met by a reaction and we are the masters of our own in-game universe.
EA has robbed us of these two points:
We have to realize that we can't get anything we want without leaving the cosmos of the game and spending rl money. This is because of a decision EA made, not the individual player. How many forum members have said that they liked whacking day because it was their own decision whether they participated in the grind or not.
EA didn't follow the rules of inventives/rewards the op describes. We get far to few lottery tickets to keep up any level of contentment.
while we are used to delayed (or no) gratification in RL, we expect from a game that our efforts are rewarded. 1box in two days is much too close to our rl experience for comfort in a game.
I think these are the reasons for people to quit the game, not (only) the miserable rewards/odds of the wheel/boxes themselves.
I kept this as short as I could. I will happily explain and discuss points that I didn't express clearly (I should probably have written a concept...) And of course I'm really looking forward to any discussion. :) mamalettejen wrote:
To OP.
I truly appreciate this post. It's intelligent and well thought out.
At the risk of fanning the flames of discord around here any further, I'd say this explains why EA is doing this AND why it's likely we will never see another grind it/earn it event ever again.
Our brains a wired to reward us with dopamine (I think that's the right brain chemical, could definitely be wrong though!) when we succeed or even MOSTLY succeed. We get nothing if we don't succeed. It's how our brains learn. Unfortunately, you can't "learn" to win at gambling. This is also how a gambling addict gets addicted in the first place.
From a strictly business standpoint, this is very clever of EA. They pretty much already have an addicted user base and they know it. Why not capture that gold egg laying goose by using our own brains against us?
I fear you may be right here. You can't really put this toothpaste back in the tube, especially if EA is seeing real profits from it.
As far as the chemistry, you're correct. Reward behavior in gaming offers us doses of dopamine, a physiological responses not unlike those found in other, ahem... "pleasurable" activities (source: http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/reward-center-in-brain-work)teo47 wrote:
Great post! Regarding the chance aspect of the event and its relationship to video slots in casinos, one of the aspects of video slots that can keep players playing despite losing money repeatedly is the result in which the player "almost wins" a big prize, which has been shown to make a player feel similarly to how he does when he actually does win. In video slots, this is done by giving the player all but one of the reels needed to win a big prize, then the last reel comes up as a loser. In Tapped Out, it's the rotation of prizes landing on Shari Bobbins or the Blocko Store but then ticking over to fences or a tree right at the last second.
Ultimately, I believe the responsibility lies with the player to set a budget and not spend more than he can afford - it's extremely difficult to do this when you always feel like you're one box away from getting that big prize, but it can be done! I am also interested in the psychology of why we feel so strongly about needing to have EVERY available prize. Do we feel inferior if our friends have Shari Bobbins walking around their towns but we don't? Maybe a little bit...I think the funny thing though is that I actually pay very little attention to what buildings and characters my friends have in their towns, so it's probably a bit silly to be overly concerned about what I don't have in mine!
I agree that it's up to us to not spend our money on this, but I do think that a lot of us premium players expected EA to be more stand-up about this. It's my fault for spending my money, I thought I could trust EA to not stack the odds so against their loyal customers. I've never been one of those people who whines about the "greedy corporations". I'm very pro-free market, but I'm totally turning into one of them when it comes to EA. These tactics are just plain greedy and a slap-in-the-face to the players who considered them a decent company who wouldn't put greed before the consumer. Oh well, lesson learned I guess. I WON'T be making this same mistake in the future. If I (as well as others) had just won one good thing for hundreds of donuts, I wouldn't be so against EA right now. It's very plain that they ripped us off. The odds shouldn't be this bad.
What I don't get is why do they want to alienate their paying customers. I probably sound like a broken record, but this only gets them a lot of money in the short term, money spent before people were privy to the shady odds. In the long term, I don't think it'll pay off. Too many people are learning the hard way and won't take the risk in the future. TSTO isn't marketed towards gamblers. It's marketed towards fans of the show. A lot of us are not gamblers, so we're not going to gamble, especially when the odds are so bad. I hope they listen to our complaints, but something tells me that money speaks to them in a much louder and persuasive voice than we do.
About why we want Shary Bobbins...In my case, I LOVE that episode and I love having new characters, especially unique, kooky ones. My favorite premiums are Crazy Cat Lady and Hans Moleman. I like the random, weird Springfielders in my town. I don't know why other people want her, but those are my reasons.cogitoergosum8 wrote:
teo47 wrote:
Great post! Regarding the chance aspect of the event and its relationship to video slots in casinos, one of the aspects of video slots that can keep players playing despite losing money repeatedly is the result in which the player "almost wins" a big prize, which has been shown to make a player feel similarly to how he does when he actually does win. In video slots, this is done by giving the player all but one of the reels needed to win a big prize, then the last reel comes up as a loser. In Tapped Out, it's the rotation of prizes landing on Shari Bobbins or the Blocko Store but then ticking over to fences or a tree right at the last second.
Ultimately, I believe the responsibility lies with the player to set a budget and not spend more than he can afford - it's extremely difficult to do this when you always feel like you're one box away from getting that big prize, but it can be done! I am also interested in the psychology of why we feel so strongly about needing to have EVERY available prize. Do we feel inferior if our friends have Shari Bobbins walking around their towns but we don't? Maybe a little bit...I think the funny thing though is that I actually pay very little attention to what buildings and characters my friends have in their towns, so it's probably a bit silly to be overly concerned about what I don't have in mine!
I agree that it's up to us to not spend our money on this, but I do think that a lot of us premium players expected EA to be more stand-up about this. It's my fault for spending my money, I thought I could trust EA to not stack the odds so against their loyal customers. I've never been one of those people who whines about the "greedy corporations". I'm very pro-free market, but I'm totally turning into one of them when it comes to EA. These tactics are just plain greedy and a slap-in-the-face to the players who considered them a decent company who wouldn't put greed before the consumer. Oh well, lesson learned I guess. I WON'T be making this same mistake in the future. If I (as well as others) had just won one good thing for hundreds of donuts, I wouldn't be so against EA right now. It's very plain that they ripped us off. The odds shouldn't be this bad.
What I don't get is why do they want to alienate their paying customers. I probably sound like a broken record, but this only gets them a lot of money in the short term, money spent before people were privy to the shady odds. In the long term, I don't think it'll pay off. Too many people are learning the hard way and won't take the risk in the future. TSTO isn't marketed towards gamblers. It's marketed towards fans of the show. A lot of us are not gamblers, so we're not going to gamble, especially when the odds are so bad. I hope they listen to our complaints, but something tells me that money speaks to them in a much louder and persuasive voice than we do.
About why we want Shary Bobbins...In my case, I LOVE that episode and I love having new characters, especially unique, kooky ones. My favorite premiums are Crazy Cat Lady and Hans Moleman. I like the random, weird Springfielders in my town. I don't know why other people want her, but those are my reasons.
I'm pretty sure EA would consider alienating loyal long time customers as NECESSARY CASUALTIES in the pursuit of profit.
I don't know the actual statistics but I think long time players are in a small minority. And players that actually go online to look at every detail of an event are probably an even smaller portion of the user base.
EA is going to try and capitalize on new players not knowing details about events and not having experienced the awesomeness of past events. New users don't know any better and that's the direction EA is going.mamalettejen wrote:
I'm pretty sure EA would consider alienating loyal long time customers as NECESSARY CASUALTIES in the pursuit of profit.
I don't know the actual statistics but I think long time players are in a small minority. And players that actually go online to look at every detail of an event are probably an even smaller portion of the user base.
EA is going to try and capitalize on new players not knowing details about events and not having experienced the awesomeness of past events. New users don't know any better and that's the direction EA is going.
It's beginning to look like you're right. It's too bad because the events used to be really fun.LeuchtbojeConny wrote:
First of all:
Thank you for one of the most interesting posts I have yet read on this forum.
Here's my two cents:
While you give many valid points, I beg to differ.
The problem is not the changed system of inventives/rewards.
As you yourself show so eloquently, even gambles/games of chance can be fulfilling if the dev handels the rewards right.
You mention the giving out of small prizes, the brushing up of the actual odds to make them appear much better and the impression of having _almost_ won one of the main prizes.
You forgot to mention that the best games give the player a feeling of control.
What is the difference between RL and the fantasy world of the game?
Two things: immediate gratification and the feeling of having everything under control (and thus the conviction that there is a solution for everything).
These are the reason why we play: every action is immediately met by a reaction and we are the masters of our own in-game universe.
EA has robbed us of these two points:
We have to realize that we can't get anything we want without leaving the cosmos of the game and spending rl money. This is because of a decision EA made, not the individual player. How many forum members have said that they liked whacking day because it was their own decision whether they participated in the grind or not.
EA didn't follow the rules of inventives/rewards the op describes. We get far to few lottery tickets to keep up any level of contentment.
while we are used to delayed (or no) gratification in RL, we expect from a game that our efforts are rewarded. 1box in two days is much too close to our rl experience for comfort in a game.
I think these are the reasons for people to quit the game, not (only) the miserable rewards/odds of the wheel/boxes themselves.
I kept this as short as I could. I will happily explain and discuss points that I didn't express clearly (I should probably have written a concept...) And of course I'm really looking forward to any discussion. :)
These are excellent points, and I wholeheartedly agree about the loss of feeling in control with this event. But isn't that what chance games do, by their very nature - rob people of control?
You are also correct that the best games with random, luck-based elements do so while letting the player feel somehow rewarded, or at least not at a complete loss. Casinos have free buffets, comped rooms, and $1 high balls. These are loss leaders designed to keep the player gambling but yet still feeling like they walk away with something.
I suppose EA is attempting this with their prize rotations giving at least something in return other than a pittance of cash (see: Christmas Wheel), but unfortunately, the execution of the tiered box system makes it feel that the harder it is to roll in the box the higher any reward should be.- Yes, but games of chance usually leave you with a pretence of control.
One armed bandits have the lever on the side, more modern consoles are outfitted with a lot of buttons and controls. Neither change the odds, but the player gets the illusion that he has influence on the outcome of the game.
Think back to Xmas and VD: how many threads were there about turning the wheel clockwise or counterclockwise, positioning your coveted item on the four-o-clock position etc. All attempts to control the odds, influence the game.
This event? What is there to manipulate? Wether I tap the box with my thump or middle finger?
And I think that is at the heart of al the discontent:
EA didn't even leave us the illusion of control.
BTW: of course our arguments are not mutually occlusive. (is that the right word?)
I just think that the longings for control and instant gratification is more basic than the (cognitive) appraisal of mathematical odds.
And I understood this thread as a place to discuss psychological aspects of gaming, not EAs business concept etc. LeuchtbojeConny wrote:
Yes, but games of chance usually leave you with a pretence of control.
One armed bandits have the lever on the side, more modern consoles are outfitted with a lot of buttons and controls. Neither change the odds, but the player gets the illusion that he has influence on the outcome of the game.
Think back to Xmas and VD: how many threads were there about turning the wheel clockwise or counterclockwise, positioning your coveted item on the four-o-clock position etc. All attempts to control the odds, influence the game.
This event? What is there to manipulate? Wether I tap the box with my thump or middle finger?
And I think that is at the heart of al the discontent:
EA didn't even leave us the illusion of control.
BTW: of course our arguments are not mutually occlusive. (is that the right word?)
I just think that the longings for control and instant gratification is more basic than the (cognitive) appraisal of mathematical odds.
And I understood this thread as a place to discuss psychological aspects of gaming, not EAs business concept etc.
You are so right about those wheels! I know I tried any strategy I could find to ensure a good spin. Maybe the egg button is the lever in this event.
http://gifstumblr.com/images/fascinating_587.gif
And yes, this thread is absolutely about discussing the psychological aspects of gaming as it applies to TSTO and this Easter event, specifically.
About The Simpsons Tapped Out General Discussion
Talk about your The Simpsons: Tapped Out experience with other TSTO players.49,395 PostsLatest Activity: 3 days ago
Related Posts
Recent Discussions
- 7 days ago