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 thing 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.
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 thing 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.