I used to work as a developer in the gambling industry in the UK so have a bit of experience in this field.
The UK gambling industry has done a really good job of self regulating, they know that if they are too exploitative and do dirty tricks to get more money from customers, the government would step in and regulate them.
We spent a lot of time building features to give customers some control. For example, users could set hard limits to stop themselves playing too much, or they could ban themselves from the site. If users were playing for too long, we'd also ban them from the site temporarily. We also implemented a lot of features which would stop them banning themselves and then rejoining using their spouses account.
It'll be really interesting to see if Zynga plays by the same rules.
I have no idea if the UK gambling industry has been an exemplary beacon of self regulation, but even if that is the case it is no guarantee that it will continue to be the case.
You yourself say the only reason that they don't exploit their customers more and 'do dirty tricks' is because of the threat of regulation.
How can we trust entities that make important decisions like these not based on actual care for the end user, but based on the threat of government regulation? (Which might actually be a good thing!)
What you've told me doesn't fill me with any confidence at all. You've described to me what sounds like a delicate and potentially quite volatile situation.
Note that the 'UK gambling industry' is rarely based in the UK and does not operate under UK rules. Zynga's site is based in Gibraltar and operates under that country's much more flexible/less customer-friendly gaming laws. The only UK thing about the casino is that they are targetting UK users.
Not true. Gibraltar companies operate under different conditions. For example, following a big gamble, UK bookmakers paid out but their Gibraltar-based counterpart did not:
It took legal action to get them to eventually pay out; the circumstances were murky and did not reflect well on the Gibraltar authorities. This is why I said they weren't customer friendly!
Why would you ever think entities that provide extensively tested skinner boxes designed to provoke compulsive behavior and extract money are making decisions based on actual care for their customers?
Could you explain your point to me please?
I agree with the premise that the current situation is unstable but I am not sure what conclusions you are drawing. (Maybe something about the morality of the gambling industry?)
The original poster seems to be arguing that the gambling industry is doing 'a great job' at self regulating. I believe that statement to be pretty meaningless, and I think regulation is likely a positive thing.
The fact they've done a good job of regulating (assumption) up to this point shouldn't be a consideration when deciding if they should be regulated in the future because we inherently can't trust them, and there is no guarantee whatsoever that it will continue that way (and I believe inevitable that at some point one of them will step over the line if they haven't already)
This shows no creativity, initiative, grace or innovation. It's not addressing any lacking market demands, they are just shoulder barging their way in and taking their slice. To me this is just a cash grab. An unapologetic cash grab in the middle of a recession.
That sort of model doesn't sit well with me, sure. The problem is when you introduce real money gambling you've amped the entire thing up and it becomes a lot easier for individuals to damage themselves more, and faster.
Let's see: By increasing prices Microsoft exploits already hooked business, increasing their costs; Google by adding ads cuts traffic to non-paying sites (ads are on top) and causes consumers to pay more. All these have consequences and display no innovation, just opportunism.
Sure gambling is a tricky moral issue but it's legal. Entire communities and even states depend on it. Why shouldn't Zynga get a cut?
It's a completely different type of exploitation to online gambling. Online gambling exploits individuals, some of whom struggle with reason and control at great expense to themselves and the people around them. The profit gained from these individuals is sometimes not proportionate to the amount of pain it inflicted.
Office raising their prices mainly exploits businesses. These businesses are not buying Office based strongly off impulse and irrationality, and I'm sure a lot of these companies would not weep regrettably into their pillows after purchasing it. Their buying process is rational, and based on need. Online gambling can be entirely irrational, out of control and is never based on addressing a need.
I think from a utilitarian point of view it would be quite easy to argue that online gambling causes net misery.
I don't blame Zynga for taking this route, I'm not surprised. But it doesn't mean I can express my distaste for something I think is ethically questionable.
So what they did was add a Zynga scheme (not much besides a few colors changed) to the partypoker.com client. How is this something that will save the company? For how long have they been talking up their real-money gambling stuff with the market eating it all up...
It's exploitative; the graphics appeal to small children. Encouraging those that aren't capable of understanding gambling is generally frowned upon, in the UK at least.
Firstly, gambling is illegal for minors. Secondly, have you ever seen slot machines? Players like to pick machines they feel comfortable with. This is Zynga using their own branding to diversify into another product.
The one thing to be said of online casinos is that they offer good protection against underage gamblers. Unlike a fruit machine in a pub, you can't just wander by and anonymously put money in. The payment systems generally prevent registering/depositing by under-18s. And even the Gibraltar gambling commission (of which Zynga falls under) is very strict about preventing minors from playing.
In Las Vegas, there are slot machines with all sorts of cartoons (Disney characters, etc). But if you look under 18, and you walk up and touch them, security is going to appear out of nowhere and ask you to leave.
There are PopCap themed slot machines already. Their characters are just as "kid friendly" in the sense that they are simple and stylized, but again PopCap's products are for adults and not kids.
Simplified shapes? Must be appealing to all small children! I remember being a kid and I liked cooler, detailed things. Likewise as an adult I really appreciate simplified designs. It may appeal to some kids but not all.
UK being a nanny state is not a good thing. It is the job of the parent to give and take access to things. Let's ban all graphics because they could appeal to some kid out there whose parents are irresponsible.
I shouldn't have to say this, but you know it's not the same thing.
UK being a nanny state is not a good thing.
I agree, and it is all too easy to say "BUT WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE KIDS!"
It is the job of the parent to give and take access to things.
But how far do you go with this? Should parents keep their children in a virtual home prison? Basically, where do you draw the line between "Parents, stop your children doing X!" and "Parents, your surveillance is evil!"
It's not easy. One thing we should be able to agree on, though, is that using childrens-book cartoon characters in gambling products does no-one any favours.
>One thing we should be able to agree on, though, is that using childrens-book cartoon characters in gambling products does no-one any favours.
FarmVille was never made for kids or to appeal to kids. Children are not the only ones who like cartoon characters. None of this is marketed to kids. If they marketed on the same channels or sites kids go to then I'd agree with you but as is aesthetics alone is not enough.
Just because it does not appeal to you does not mean it doesn't appeal to other adults. It does not mean it automatically appeals to kids either.
>Should parents keep their children in a virtual home prison?
I'm not about to tell parents what to do, but if I were a parent I would want my kids to be as wordly as possible and to understand the way things work as soon as possible. Understanding that gambling is not a way to make money (unless you own the machines) is a good thing to know. It's not about being a hawk and watching every action, and banning things so there is no chance of anyone being exposed. It's about building up key knowledge, allowing them to make mistakes, and having a positive enough environment where they can safely learn from their mistakes.
Yes, but the Gambling Commission is quite-straight forward about not encouraging children to gamble:
To protect children these should include, for example... not deliberately providing facilities for gambling in such a way as to appeal particularly to children and young people
Yes, but only kinda-sorta. Until quite recently (2005? 2006?), there was no way to walk into a casino and start gambling straight away - you had to join as a member, and wait 24 hours.
Well true but a lot of adults play farmville and that cutesy cartoon style is used by many bingo sites with out problems.
And betting shops have been legal since the 60's I can walk in place a bet on any high street since the 60's
The casino membership is a bit ott typical British "elf and safty mate" over the top regulation. I don't drive and don't have a passport so i have difficulty in becoming a member.
Its the proliferation of fixed ods machines in bookies that needs looking at
Considering one of their most successful games has been Zynga Poker for a while, it's surprising it took this long.
What they do have, however, is a very captive network audience. Assuming they have the right targeting, they should be able to run interstitials driving players from their free games (especially Zynga Poker, Zynga Slots, Zynga Slingo) over to these sites at a low cost. You don't have to agree with their creativity to see that this is a no-brainer for them.
By the time you start seeing comments like this, it's generally too late and it's already built into the price. People have been speculating Zynga would do this for years now.
Seriously now: ZNGA is ~10% up now and although the stock price of Zynga implicitly has this information, since it is a risky stock (not Apple launching the iPhone I) there is an opportunity for buying it, even later.
The real question is: will they be successful at lobbying the US government to allow them to operate in the States? Buying the stock now is (in my mind) largely a bet that they will be.
The performance of the current online casino is also an important part of the equation, if it fails then going to the US probably wont be much more successful. So I think it's a gamble based on current performance and the potential of expanding to other territories.
Online gambling in the US is a much tougher nut from what I've read.
given nearly every country has some form of gambling regulation, someone certainly thinks their values, with regards to gambling, should be imposed on the masses, yes.
Given that Zynga has hired skinnerian behaviorists, and that they optimize their games by the effect on their bottom line (not entertainment value), I expect more than a few single mothers to spend their money on empty facebook thrills to the detriment of family life and the UK in general.
Most everything you do in life is chasing highs and reinforcing biological addictions or psychological habits. Going for a run? Chasing that runner's high, scratching that addiction itch. Having sex? Getting that orgasm high, scratching that addiction itch. Eating food you love? Getting that sugar high, scratching that addiction itch.
Utilitarian gamblers, in essence, are looking for something to do. Many are seniors, who are looking to kill time, reduce boredom, or simply get out of the house – and they are less motivated by financial rewards or excitement. Some enjoy people-watching as much as the actual slot play.
Excitement gamblers are looking for a buzz – the thrill of winning a jackpot, relaxing and having a good time. This group doesn’t like progressive machines with bigger payouts because they don’t pay off frequently enough to provide the excitement.
Multipurpose gamblers tend to be younger, less educated, have lower household income, and are less likely to be married and own a home. Their motivation is to have fun and win money, and they are attracted to themed games and other machines they consider “lucky” or fun to play.
Relaxation gamblers were the most educated and well-to-do, and played slot machines for the socialization and fun. However, they also like to stay within their denomination – usually 25-cent machines or $1 machines, and often look at slot play as a way to relieve day-to-day stress.
The UK gambling industry has done a really good job of self regulating, they know that if they are too exploitative and do dirty tricks to get more money from customers, the government would step in and regulate them.
We spent a lot of time building features to give customers some control. For example, users could set hard limits to stop themselves playing too much, or they could ban themselves from the site. If users were playing for too long, we'd also ban them from the site temporarily. We also implemented a lot of features which would stop them banning themselves and then rejoining using their spouses account.
It'll be really interesting to see if Zynga plays by the same rules.