One of my greatest worries going through Engineering school was working on a product that would inadvertently harm people.
I once wanted to work at a Lithium Ion battery start-up because I wanted to help create an energy source free of geo-political and climate turmoil. Then I discovered those sources were some of the most toxic to the environment both in the harvesting and the disposing of the material.
I then went on to do graduate research in explosives detection. We created machines that would help detect bombs in Iraq and landmines left in a peaceful villages. But then TSA used the machines to look at people's private parts and there was a mass privacy scare.
My point is: you can't go life worrying who might use the things you create for harmful purposes. You may be ignorant, but the alternative will drive you insane.
You do realize that the whole point of these games is socially engineering people into parting with as much money as possible, right? They're paying money for a chance at winning certain pixels and you're pretending in your head that they're all wealthy millionaires and justifying it to yourself.
If you don't want to make games for addicts perhaps you should stop working for companies that make games for addicts. You're not fooling me.
> You do realize that the whole point of these games is socially engineering people into parting with as much money as possible, right?
Isn't this the point of any business?
> If you don't want to make games for addicts perhaps you should stop working for companies that make games for addicts.
I don't believe we make games for addicts. When I show our game to my friends and family they say things like "oh this game is cute", "this creature is funny", etc. The vast majority of our users are people who enjoy casual gaming when they're bored sitting on a plane or on the train.
That vast majority of your users account for what, like 10% of your revenue, or less? The real point of your product is targeting addicts, whales, as you called them, and manipulating them into paying money for nothing. Yes, actually nothing, because you rig the odds and dangle carrot shaped pixels above their heads and use every psychological trick in the book, the state of the art, to get them to keep playing.
That is not the point of business for me, most businesses offer something of value.
No, you get to decide what the point of the business you work for is. No one else does, you do. There's no rule that says the point of any/every businesses is to get people to part with as much money as possible.
In a way, but at my last employer, the people being socially engineered were employees of our clients who then had to jump through several hoops to justify their plans - often numerically - and get business spending on our services authorized, not putative millionaires trickling down their personal hard-earned wealth.
This is the problem with large businesses; they can always say the supposed positives to the majority outweigh the real harms they are doing to a minority. Don't you think inducing people to click on stuff over and over with absolutely no skill is unethical? Comparing "social games" to other harmless diversions is like comparing a culture of drinking a few beers at the end of the week with a culture of encouraging people to drink as much as they want.
I think there is a middle way in everything. For instance, you can run a game company without targeting serious addicts. You won't make as much money, but maybe you'll feel better. You don't have to go insane, though.
So, because sometimes you get it wrong you should go through life without considering the consequences of your actions? I don't think that's a good way to approach ethics. A better idea would be to learn from these incidents, speak out against your old employers and be more prudent with future employers.
Comments
>Yes, we maximize for users who spend over $10k.
>I don't want to be creating products for addicts. But what if these users are just rich people who have tons of money to spend off the cuff?
Ahhh, ignorance is plausible deniability bliss.
One of my greatest worries going through Engineering school was working on a product that would inadvertently harm people.
I once wanted to work at a Lithium Ion battery start-up because I wanted to help create an energy source free of geo-political and climate turmoil. Then I discovered those sources were some of the most toxic to the environment both in the harvesting and the disposing of the material.
I then went on to do graduate research in explosives detection. We created machines that would help detect bombs in Iraq and landmines left in a peaceful villages. But then TSA used the machines to look at people's private parts and there was a mass privacy scare.
My point is: you can't go life worrying who might use the things you create for harmful purposes. You may be ignorant, but the alternative will drive you insane.
You do realize that the whole point of these games is socially engineering people into parting with as much money as possible, right? They're paying money for a chance at winning certain pixels and you're pretending in your head that they're all wealthy millionaires and justifying it to yourself.
If you don't want to make games for addicts perhaps you should stop working for companies that make games for addicts. You're not fooling me.
> You do realize that the whole point of these games is socially engineering people into parting with as much money as possible, right?
Isn't this the point of any business?
> If you don't want to make games for addicts perhaps you should stop working for companies that make games for addicts.
I don't believe we make games for addicts. When I show our game to my friends and family they say things like "oh this game is cute", "this creature is funny", etc. The vast majority of our users are people who enjoy casual gaming when they're bored sitting on a plane or on the train.
That vast majority of your users account for what, like 10% of your revenue, or less? The real point of your product is targeting addicts, whales, as you called them, and manipulating them into paying money for nothing. Yes, actually nothing, because you rig the odds and dangle carrot shaped pixels above their heads and use every psychological trick in the book, the state of the art, to get them to keep playing.
That is not the point of business for me, most businesses offer something of value.
See my comment here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3556270
Would you feel the same way if we changed the business model from virtual currency to a fixed-cost one?
> Isn't this the point of any business?
No, you get to decide what the point of the business you work for is. No one else does, you do. There's no rule that says the point of any/every businesses is to get people to part with as much money as possible.
> Isn't this the point of any business?
In a way, but at my last employer, the people being socially engineered were employees of our clients who then had to jump through several hoops to justify their plans - often numerically - and get business spending on our services authorized, not putative millionaires trickling down their personal hard-earned wealth.
This is the problem with large businesses; they can always say the supposed positives to the majority outweigh the real harms they are doing to a minority. Don't you think inducing people to click on stuff over and over with absolutely no skill is unethical? Comparing "social games" to other harmless diversions is like comparing a culture of drinking a few beers at the end of the week with a culture of encouraging people to drink as much as they want.
Quick! Alert the people selling software that it's just pixels! It's pixels all the way down!
I think there is a middle way in everything. For instance, you can run a game company without targeting serious addicts. You won't make as much money, but maybe you'll feel better. You don't have to go insane, though.
So, because sometimes you get it wrong you should go through life without considering the consequences of your actions? I don't think that's a good way to approach ethics. A better idea would be to learn from these incidents, speak out against your old employers and be more prudent with future employers.