Originally Posted by
Jinx Vox
Your comparison doesn't work. If anything, your choice of example undermines your entire argument.
Breweries do not attempt to make their products addictive, nor do their intentionally target alcoholics. In fact, it is explicitly illegal for them to add harmful addictive substances to their products. The production of alcoholic drinks is, in fact, highly regulated and under constant scrutiny. So much so that an entire market of low-alcohol and alcohol-free drinks is booming. The result is an industry that is focused on the quality and identity of their product rather than its addictive properties.
Meanwhile, the gaming industry has introduced myriads of gambling mechanics into games with the intentional goal of capitalizing on addiction. As any game developer will tell you, game design has always been about creating short game loops that are addictive to your brain. As competition between game publishers has grown, so has their tendency to force more and more design decisions that are about the intentional creation of addiction. As a result, game concepts that are not conducive to the introduction of loot boxes, microtransactions, time-limited offers, FOMO, etc., are now routinely canned by big publishers, while otherwise good design is sabotaged by these things. If you think differently, you are in denial about the state of the industry, and any developer not licking the boots of their publisher will tell you that.
WoW vanilla was made in a time when gambling mechanics were neither omnipresent in AAA game design, nor commercialized to the extent that they are now. Blizzard, as always, has been lagging behind the industry in introducing these things, but the influence of it on design decisions during the past decade is there and visible in the systems that have been introduced to WoW, even if it's nowhere near as blatant as in other MMO's. You are, again, in denial if you think that Blizzard wants to just "create a fun game", or if you think that psychology isn't part of modern game design and game design courses.
I, in fact, have several friends who are game designers and who have privately spoken out in disgust of what they're told and being taught about exploiting addiction and players psychology. Yet in spite of their very negative opinion of what they're taught and made to do, there's nothing they can do against it because ultimately it requires government intervention through regulation. They all know and recognize this, just as they are all very aware of the negative pressure gambling and seasonal FOMO have on the quality of their designs. Current design decisions are driven by shareholders who demand psychologically addictive games, not game designers who want to make a fun game.
I have not compared holidays and timewalking to casinos. Don't put words in my mouth. What I did compare to casinos, is Blizzard's business philosophy (and that of the industry at large), and how that influences design practices. There is a difference there.
What is obvious from a design point of view, is that holidays and timewalking, while not bad by themselves in any shape or form, are rationed in such a way that players who want to finish that content and reap its rewards need to remain subscribed for a very long time to have a shot at it. While time-limited content isn't inherently predatory, it becomes predatory when there's a financial incentive, such as subscriptions, to capitalize on it by stretching the time-to-completion out as long as possible regardless of whether it makes good game design or not .. preferably to the point where it takes multiple rounds of the content being available.
Again, the discussion is not about whether or not companies, Blizzard included, are doing this (because they are, without a shadow of a doubt), but about what extent of it is reasonable and permissible. The one thing that the time and reward structure of holidays and timewalking points out, is that Blizzard has no qualms at all about exploiting player psychology. They are, if anything, small scale examples of the kind of thinking that WoW's primary gameplay systems are rife with.
The crux of the matter is this: because WoW runs on subscriptions, Blizzard has a perverse incentive to control the pacing of rewards (this is what weekly chests, individual loot, and timed mission boards are all about, regardless of what the marketing department says), and an equally perverse incentive to not give players the ability to hasten loot procurement unless they pay a sum of money that is equal to or greater than what they would gain from that player's subscription (this is what tokens and BOE items are really about). It is, in essence, a lighter version of what EA does with setting the in-game prices of rewards at such extremes that players have no choice but to spend real currency instead if they don't want to psychologically torture themselves.
Yes, from their own perspective Blizzard has done a reasonable job of not (yet) falling into the extremes that other online games have, but the gradually accelerating drive towards it has been undeniably present in WoW's last few expansions, and the negative pressure of it on WoW game design is evident. Blizzard no longer designs content for the sake of content, but only as the meat on a skeleton of an abusive, predatory design philosophy of micromanaging player psychology to stretch reward acquisition out over the longest possible time. This approach minimizes content creation, maximizes return-on-investment, and also explains why WoW's systems and narratives are a pile of aborted garbage that never carry through to the next expansion .. or the next patch as of late.