The odd difference here is people supposedly do this knowing they can’t win their money back (which is shocking to me). I assume the argument is they’re paying for entertainment.
I can only imagine the boardroom meeting where this idea was first proposed.
"So you're saying it's like a slot machine, except they can't win anything and just give us free money? Are you insane? What kind of idiot would sign up to that?"
>We knew this about casinos. That's why they were relegated to a little hellish desert town.
There are only two states with legal casino style gambling statewide, but most states offer many other ways to gamble legally: lotteries, tribal casinos, racetrack betting, and sports betting are widespread and nearly every state has at least one form of legal gambling. In fact there are only two states where all forms of gambling are outlawed: Hawaii and Utah.
For me, yeah, I might have the self control, but I also live in a society. What other people do affects me. For example, I don't want the people with an alcohol problem to have unlimited access to alcohol. I drive on the same roads as them.
Not really a great analogy because someone else’s gambling problem is not going to get you killed on the way home from work.
I would support some kind of rule where you can’t generate more than $1,000 / yr or something off the same user. Does that change the entire economics of the social game industry? Yes, that’s the point.
You can’t really kill someone else with casino chips, unless you tried really hard. Not everything is black and white, need to consider the context as well.
What happened that we decided apps somehow solved the problems related to gambling?