Achievements/Trophies: Where do you draw the line?

[jayseven]

But if you want to lose loads of weight then the carrot and treadmill is an excellent thing :P It would be a subjective situation. But also it does not account (or perhaps merely does not expressly allow) for the fact that the person on the treadmill can get off at any time, can change the speed of teh treadmill, and also can get feedback from the treadmill which can tell him precisely how far he's run and at what speed, while also displaying a heart rate monitor.

 

You can get off the tradmill by ignoring achievements, by turning notifications off for the 360. People who are simply unable to switch off - who deal with the sort of OCD or have issues with addiction - need professional help. Nannying for their safety would mean removing actual legitimate pleasure and happiness for the large majority of others who are able to control their gameplay style.

 

People who are already vulnerable to OC tendencies have bigger problems in their lives than gamerscore. The order that their shirts are hung up in teh wardrobe or the fact that the toaster is not at a right-angle to the bread bin, or that the light switch hasn't been flicked 7 times in the last hour. Metagame/external rewards/loyalty schemes provide genuine, legitimate, real happiness from the act of achieving. Happiness.

 

If you were to introduce safeguards in game development to protect the groups you mention then do you think that would not affect the internal rewards systems at all? Surely any element of a game that encourages replay is therefore dangerous? Any game that has collectibles? A map to explore? F-Zero X had, what, 30 racers, 4 tournaments, and 5 difficulties - which is really an OCD nightmare/dream.

 

it is not the responsibility of games developers to protect these groups of people. Their family would be primary care givers and they would be responsible for both recognising symptoms and protecting health. Those without a family to do so is an even smaller group. Arguing that even they should be protected would mean all groups of that size should be thought of, which opens up a truckful of cans of worms; where would it end?

 

I am tempted to think up examples to push this further but it's fairly self-explanatory. If you're allergic to peanuts do you blame the people who grow them, the people who use them as ingredients or the people who buy them for ignoring your health problem? It is your problem. Not their responsibility. You have alternatives, that's a reasonable enough compromise.

[Dcubed]

You can get off the tradmill by ignoring achievements' date=' by turning notifications off for the 360. People who are simply unable to switch off - who deal with the sort of OCD or have issues with addiction - need professional help. Nannying for their safety would mean removing actual legitimate pleasure and happiness for the large majority of others who are able to control their gameplay style.

 

it is not the responsibility of games developers to protect these groups of people. Their family would be primary care givers and they would be responsible for both recognising symptoms and protecting health. Those without a family to do so is an even smaller group. Arguing that even they should be protected would mean all groups of that size should be thought of, which opens up a truckful of cans of worms; where would it end?[/quote']

 

Why not a simple warning label on the box for games/consoles/services that utilise these techniques? Like what you get with gambling (and no, that crappy little gambling symbol on PEGI rated games is nowhere near descriptive enough!)

 

There are many inobtusive ways of helping stem the impact it may have on the vulnerable. You could have a console function that limits the amount of time that a console can be played in a day without having to dig into parental controls, a timer/reminder function that can be manually set to a specific time for when a warning would come up to remind you to quit so you can go off and do something you need to do (there could even be a notification before the set time to warn you to save your game before that time comes and the console shuts off!), one that removes public showing of Gamerscores/points, or maybe a function that allows gamerscore caps or one that even removes Gamerscores/points all together! (all of these possible features could easily be opt-in). And in the case of the PS3/Vita, they could implement a bloody option to turn notifications off already!

 

The genie is out of the bottle in regards to these systems now, but the platform holders could (and should!) implement better abstinence tools for those that need them; they (along with the global regulatory bodies) should also focus on improving education about the possible addictive qualities of certain games, instead of sweeping it under the carpet. Self regulation should be the proper way forward, rather than waiting until governments have to step in to take action themselves (like what recently happened with the "Complete Gatcha" technique used in Japan)

 

I am tempted to think up examples to push this further but it's fairly self-explanatory. If you're allergic to peanuts do you blame the people who grow them' date=' the people who use them as ingredients or the people who buy them for ignoring your health problem? It is [i']your[/i] problem. Not their responsibility. You have alternatives, that's a reasonable enough compromise.

 

Nuts have allergy warnings on the packaging, games do not...

Edited September 8, 2012 by Dcubed

[Ganepark32]

Still going on about OC(D) and the 'vulnerable'? I did begin to type out a lengthy post explaining why it's not attributable to achievements/trophies but to be honest, I couldn't be bothered finishing it.

 

All I'll say is that OC behaviour revolves around attempting to minimise or prevent anxiety or stress through repetition and neither of these 'external' rewards elicit these issues except the latter through failure to do something in the game rather than being the initial driving force behind the behaviour, in this case playing a game, which would confirm OC.

 

The reward itself from unlocking one of these is so minimal anyway, barely enough to create anything more than a slight increase in dopamine in your system that they're not even a real issue. Especially when you consider that, as I've already said, classical conditioning is a fundamental part of games and has been for decades and is more likely a contributor to notions of gaming addiction and what not because they do elicit more reward for doing something specific in the game rather than giving you something superficial that pretty much everyone knows is meaningless and is linked to elements of competitive drives and ego.

 

---------------------------------

 

Anyway, I do like the things as they do actually make you sit and play the game properly in most cases. For example, although they're basic time trial achievements, the Beat the Team achievements in Split/Second were great examples of how they should be implemented as they required you to play the game properly and learn to use the throttle/brakes, the track layout/shortcuts, and where things were going to explode/wreck so you could avoid them. Had a lot of fun getting those despite taking a little while in both cases (probably an hour or so in each case).

Edited September 8, 2012 by Ganepark32

[Tales]

So, if you like trophies you belong in a mental institute, but if you collect all 649 Pokemon that's just okay? That's ridiciulous.

[Diageo]

Still going on about OC(D) and the 'vulnerable'? I did begin to type out a lengthy post explaining why it's not attributable to achievements/trophies but to be honest, I couldn't be bothered finishing it.

 

All I'll say is that OC behaviour revolves around attempting to minimise or prevent anxiety or stress through repetition and neither of these 'external' rewards elicit these issues except the latter through failure to do something in the game rather than being the initial driving force behind the behaviour, in this case playing a game, which would confirm OC.

 

The reward itself from unlocking one of these is so minimal anyway, barely enough to create anything more than a slight increase in dopamine in your system that they're not even a real issue. Especially when you consider that, as I've already said, classical conditioning is a fundamental part of games and has been for decades and is more likely a contributor to notions of gaming addiction and what not because they do elicit more reward for doing something specific in the game rather than giving you something superficial that pretty much everyone knows is meaningless and isn't linked to elements of competitive drives and ego.

 

---------------------------------

 

Anyway, I do like the things as they do actually make you sit and play the game properly in most cases. For example, although they're basic time trial achievements, the Beat the Team achievements in Split/Second were great examples of how they should be implemented as they required you to play the game properly and learn to use the throttle/brakes, the track layout/shortcuts, and where things were going to explode/wreck so you could avoid them. Had a lot of fun getting those despite taking a little while in both cases (probably an hour or so in each case).

Are you saying gamerscore and trophies aren't linked to elements of competitive drives and ego because I would say the exact opposite.

[Ganepark32]

Are you saying gamerscore and trophies aren't linked to elements of competitive drives and ego because I would say the exact opposite.

 

My bad, meant to say 'Is linked' as that's all I'd say they tap into. Was sorting out music at the same time I typed that up.

[jayseven]

@Dcubed I disagree that games need warning labels. Peanut allergies can result in death. Achievement hunting cannot. I still motion that if you have warnings for game's complusiveness or addictiveness then you're labelling every single game. I also think that there are larger bodies of 'vulnerable' that exist.

 

You have recognised a form of behaviour that exists in gaming, and you have recognised that the industry is aware of it and takes it into account when designing games. You state that there are those extreme cases where this form of behaviour affects their day-to-day lives. You demand that they be considered by the industry.

 

I state that those with serious behavioural issues need further and more serious care, and I do not believe that it is the responsibility of the industry to cater for them.

 

There is no huge issue about this. You have cited many 'journals' that talk about the link between gaming and addictions but it is not the same as other addictions which affect entire economies.

 

In the US alone:

 

• [*]Smoking causes more than $193billion each year in health-related costs, including the cost of lost productivity caused by deaths from smoking.

[*]Smoking-related medical costs averaged more than $96 billion each year between 2000 and 2004.

[*]Death-related productivity losses from smoking among workers cost the US economy almost $97 billion yearly (average for 2000-2004).

Source

 

What damage does an external reward system actually have? On society, nothing. People with the sort of crippling OCD that would be needed in order for achievements of trophies to be debilitating to their working life would be utterly inable to work anyway, for their compulsions would be found elsewhere and already a driving force in their life. On the self? As is already obvious - if they suffer here, then they are suffering anyway.

 

It is often stated that everyone has a vice. We can call them hobbies, we can call them urges. It is when an addiction impacts upon that person's ability to lead a 'normal' life that it becomes a problem. Gaming addiciton certainly exists but again, it is not the role of the industry itself to cater for someone who has an addictive personality - if there were no games they'd be addicted to something else.

 

I disagree that we need to label games "warning: addictive" (I'm sure some games have used that as a selling point). Where would you draw the line? "Warning: jokes about dead babies" to protect those who miscarried? "warning: spiders" for those arachnophobic? "Warning: Contains scenes of an outdoor nature" for the agoraphobic?

 

You speak about 'sweeping it all under the carpet' as if it's a giant mess affecting billions already.

[Sheikah]

So, if you like trophies you belong in a mental institute, but if you collect all 649 Pokemon that's just okay? That's ridiciulous.

 

Agreed, that doesn't make sense. If anything Pokemon is worse from the 'industry is evil' aspect because 'gotta catch 'em all' is the main tag-line to the games/cartoon.

[Dcubed]

@Dcubed I disagree that games need warning labels. Peanut allergies can result in death. Achievement hunting cannot. I still motion that if you have warnings for game's complusiveness or addictiveness then you're labelling every single game. I also think that there are larger bodies of 'vulnerable' that exist.

 

You have recognised a form of behaviour that exists in gaming' date=' and you have recognised that the industry is aware of it and takes it into account when designing games. You state that there are those extreme cases where this form of behaviour affects their day-to-day lives. You demand that they be considered by the industry.

 

I state that those with serious behavioural issues need further and more serious care, and I do not believe that it is the responsibility of the industry to cater for them.

 

There is no huge issue about this. You have cited many 'journals' that talk about the link between gaming and addictions but it is not the same as other addictions which affect entire economies.

 

In the US alone:

 

Source

 

What damage does an external reward system actually have? On society, nothing. People with the sort of crippling OCD that would be needed in order for achievements of trophies to be debilitating to their working life would be utterly inable to work anyway, for their compulsions would be found elsewhere and already a driving force in their life. On the self? As is already obvious - if they suffer here, then they are suffering anyway.

 

It is often stated that everyone has a vice. We can call them hobbies, we can call them urges. It is when an addiction impacts upon that person's ability to lead a 'normal' life that it becomes a problem. Gaming addiciton certainly exists but again, it is not the role of the industry itself to cater for someone who has an addictive personality - if there were no games they'd be addicted to something else.

 

I disagree that we need to label games "warning: addictive" (I'm sure some games have used that as a selling point). Where would you draw the line? "Warning: jokes about dead babies" to protect those who miscarried? "warning: spiders" for those arachnophobic? "Warning: Contains scenes of an outdoor nature" for the agoraphobic?

 

You speak about 'sweeping it all under the carpet' as if it's a giant mess affecting billions already.

 

You don't have to be suffering from full blown OCD in order to become addicted, you may well have these tendencies lying dormant that are brought to the surface upon playing these kinds of games/systems; and if there are enough of these kinds of people to sustain an entire industry sector (F2P games), then it's clearly not a tiny minority that isn't worth helping surely?

 

It's a significant enough issue for Gambling to be regulated and feature these kinds of warnings, why not do the same for those games/systems that use the same techniques? What's the harm in offering these people better optional, opt-in and inobtrusive tools/education in order to help them manage their own vices and enable them to enjoy playing games without having their lives becoming consumed by them?

Edited September 9, 2012 by Dcubed

[jayseven]

F2P games aren't supported solely by people with OCD that is serious enough to warrant help; OCD that is serious enoough to impact on the lives of them and of others. You say this.

 

So it is held up by other people with "[OCD] tendencies lying dormant" you say. My point here would be that these tendencies are in no way harmful, in no way damaging to the individual or society as a whole. I would also argue that it is entirely normal to have 'ocd tendencies'. I also argue that F2P games is not what we were arguing about and is instead a facet of the facet that you were arguing about previously. There are no F2P games on PS3/360 so those external reward systems would therefore be irrelevant to your new point.

 

I argue that it is a big leap between grouping these elements together, and comparing them to gambling, too. Gambling is regulated because it harms lives, because people with addiction problems end up losing jobs, houses, partners, children to their inability to function regularly; to their compulsions.

 

I feel that you are moving away from the role of achievement unlocking and towards the role of farmville et al in mentioning F2P.

 

Ultimately, to reiterate; if someone has an underlying OCD tendency that is of severity strong enough that their lives or the lives of others are affected, then it will be exhibited in other ways, and will not be something that the game exclusively is responsible for.

 

In Australia, gambling is a huge problem. I attended a serious university open evening which concluded with a raffle. There are large social clubs that are funded entirely by one-armed bandit machines. I'm sure I could find millions of people who would rather someone they knew switched from gambling to achievement hunting. Not sure I could find so many to go the other way.

[Dcubed]

I think we're approaching this issue from two (yet perhaps equally valid perspectives here)

 

I'm focusing on the severity of an addiction and the morality of maximising said addiction, while you are focused on the effects that stem FROM that addiction and the logic behind regulating an addiction that arguably has limited mental/physical impact in comparison to much more harmful addictions.

 

Would you say that's right on your end?

 

If so, I present my belief that it is immoral to purposely design systems that are designed to maximise addiction and that making Achivements external (as well as tied to a Metagame system) crosses that line of morality.

 

Putting aside the point of warning labels and wider industry regulation (because this applies to F2P and MMO games much moreso and that's going waaaaaaayyyyy off topic!), do you not agree that this is immoral? If not, where does your own line of morality stand on the issue? (which I suppose was the original point of the topic in the first place!)

Edited September 9, 2012 by Dcubed

[jayseven]

I really want to say that I agree that maximising an addiction [in order to increase profits] is morally wrong, but I can't in this instance because of the importance of maintaining a distinction between the extreme end of the addictive scale and the, for want of a better word, casual.

 

You say you are focusing on the severity of an addiction and the morality of maximising that addiction. I think you are focusing not on the severity of the addiction, just the morality of maximising an addiction. This element of your argument is where I fight, for the spectrum of behaviours that can be attributed to addiction are not all bad, are not all damaging.

 

If someone is trying to maximise their profits by preying on the defenseless or the weak or those that cannot help themselves then yes, that is immoral. But the majority of gamers -- i.e. the target demographic -- are not addicted to the external reward system that we are fighting over. The target demographic may well indeed be addicted to gaming as a whole, but by and large it is the same kind of addiction that others have for TV, exercise and work. It is not the debilitating addiction that smokers or gamblers have. Can you say tobacco companies' core demographic isn't the addict?

 

Which is why I stress the idea that those who might become incidental prey to a achievements would have to have a severe amount of tendencies in the first place, because it is important to highlight this factor. Failing to recognise this causality-ish element means the argument becomes dangerously similar to the whole "video games make people violent" and that must be steered from.

 

In terms of my own stance on teh morality; I think it is certainly questionable when achievements exist as little other than promotion tools i.e. Army of Two's Create a Mask achievement, which requires the gamer to visit a location external to the gaming rig. I dislike achievements that are for online games because (for 360) you have to purchase something extra in order to get them (a Live gold account) but I do not think these are immoral. Maybe it's not a moral issue, but it's more just not the nicest thing that could be done - but then again it's a business. I dislike advertising and marketing but I understand that it exists.

 

I think it could be fun to draw parallels between the achievement systems of games and maybe a nefarious drug dealer (I'm thinking Requiem for a Dream) - but it would be dangerous to believe your own hyperbole and forget that they are still different things.

[Dcubed]

I suppose then that the ultimate test of the effectiveness of these achivement systems will be when the next generation of consoles comes round. It is there we will see just how powerful they are in terms of locking people into the platforms they've already invested their time into (and I'd argue that next to MS' 3rd party support, is MS greatest asset in going into the next generation)

 

Assuming that MS dont do something ridiculously stupid like breaking compatibility with the current Xbox Live (would make for a nice part of the upcoming Third Console Curse effect!), rightfully they should see most 360 owners sticking with Microsoft for the next generation. If they switch to someone else enmass, then I'm wrong about the strength of the impact that these systems have and I'd admit that it doesn't cross that imaginary line of morality (at least for their intended target audience), as it'll show that there if there is an addiction, then it is to gaming as a whole rather than these systems.

 

I suppose the same could apply to Sony as well, but the 360 has a bigger userbase and arguably a stronger system in place (since it was there from the start)

 

Sound good?

Edited September 9, 2012 by Dcubed

[Daft]

The 360 and PS3 user base is pretty close. In fact, I think the PS3 overtook the 360 last year but I can't find any more recent figures (but it has been trending that way for a while).

 

Add a whole host of completely different factors, like which friends list you're 'locked' into among others, then no, that doesn't sound good.

[Dcubed]

The 360 and PS3 user base is pretty close. In fact, I think the PS3 overtook the 360 last year but I can't find any more recent figures (but it has been trending that way for a while).

 

Add a whole host of completely different factors, like which friends list you're 'locked' into among others, then no, that doesn't sound good.

 

The 360 is still ahead by a few million units WW, but it doesn't matter either way. Replace Sony with MS if you want.

 

Besides, is the current friends list that big of a factor? Isn't that something that is effectively "reset" upon starting a new generation? Ultimately you'll go where your friends go (and if they all decide to switch over to someone else at the start of the generation because the competition offers better games/services etc or Sony/MS do something stupid like an Anti Used Games system, then you're pretty likely to follow)

 

The biggest other locking mechanism in play in regards to the generational transfer is no doubt backwards compatibility/digital purchases tied to your account and admittedly there's no way to account for that with my suggested measurement, but that has never really been a deciding factor in each generation by itself; the Atari 5200, Megadrive and PS3 (which flopped at retail long before PS2 compatibility was cut) can attest to that!

 

Granted it's a bit unfairly slanted against my own stance (since it doesnt validate my own opinion either way, it's either lose or draw for me :p) but it at least shows us if the 360's Achievements system is powerful enough to prevent Microsoft or Sony from losing a large chunk of their audience next generation (of what amount I'm not sure, maybe at least a 50-60% drop?)

 

If that large drop happens, I may have to re-evaluate my opinion on the matter as it would show that the Gamerscore clearly has less of an impact on addiction than I would imagine! (as that wouldnt really be any lower a drop than previous downfalls - and MS are due for a fall - with Sony looking in dire straights to boot!)

 

If it drops by only a small amount (or even rises!) then that just means that the next generation transition won't invalidate my own opinion.

Edited September 9, 2012 by Dcubed

[Daft]

We could speculate, but honestly, I couldn't even begin to guess how the next generation will play out. I just think what the console has to offer (it's price, features, cost of online, marketing) will completely override any system achievement system.

 

Also, I don't see an issue with collecting both Trophies and Achievements. I think, though I may be wrong, that you're presupposing that it's one or the other. I know HoT has a shit tonne of both and personally, while I prefer Trophies, if I got a next gen Xbox I'd start adding to my gamerscore pretty merrily.

[Cube]

Is the current friends list that big of a factor? Isn't that something that is effectively "reset" upon starting a new generation?

 

The Xbox was the first console with a proper online system, so is the only one we can base the friends list "reset" on. And in the case of going to the Xbox to Xbox 360, there was no resetting of the friends list - it all stayed with the account.

 

Furthermore, the Xbox Live account is a much broader account, tying into other Microsoft services, and devices running Windows Phone and Windows 8. There is absolutely no way that Xbox Live won't be on the next system.

 

The same for PSN - Sony are attempting to expand it to a broader Sony account. It will be fully compatible with the next console.

[Dcubed]

The Xbox was the first console with a proper online system, so is the only one we can base the friends list "reset" on. And in the case of going to the Xbox to Xbox 360, there was no resetting of the friends list - it all stayed with the account.

 

Furthermore, the Xbox Live account is a much broader account, tying into other Microsoft services, and devices running Windows Phone and Windows 8. There is absolutely no way that Xbox Live won't be on the next system.

 

The same for PSN - Sony are attempting to expand it to a broader Sony account. It will be fully compatible with the next console.

 

I didn't mean a reset on their servers, I meant a reset in terms of its effectiveness. With a whole new generation on the horizon, friends can bandy together and collectively decide to switch to another console if they don't like what MS or Sony are offering (you'd really see this happen at the start of the generation most clearly though.

 

We could speculate, but honestly, I couldn't even begin to guess how the next generation will play out. I just think what the console has to offer (it's price, features, cost of online, marketing) will completely override any system achievement system.

 

Also, I don't see an issue with collecting both Trophies and Achievements. I think, though I may be wrong, that you're presupposing that it's one or the other. I know HoT has a shit tonne of both and personally, while I prefer Trophies, if I got a next gen Xbox I'd start adding to my gamerscore pretty merrily.

 

Ahh, I didn't think about multiconsole ownership (which probably accounts for a good chunk of both audiences) Disregard my idea then

 

Ehh, I guess there's no way to prove either which way then (unless MS AND Sony lose massive chunks of their audience, which could well happen!

 

So that's the end of my argument then? Hmm, kind of anti climactic really Oh well, it was fun!

Edited September 9, 2012 by Dcubed