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)
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.