Addictive games, why (not) (!)(?)

I once put the word "addictive" into some marketing language for the game I'm Kickstarting soon, and the question of whether or not that is a good thing arose.

I actually got the idea from Mattel, who uses the term in describing UNO. Maybe it's because they have to say SOMETHING intriguing about such a *blah* game, but I figured if their millions of dollars in marketing expertise landed them at that conclusion, there must be something motivating about it.

It's one thing to call a game addictive, and another to actually BE addictive. Simply put, addictive means you want to keep playing over and over and over...presumably introduce the game to new players, who in turn come to like the game and share with others.

Addictive means that when it's time to play a game, one title regularly jumps to the front of the line. I think these tend to fall into the lighter/filler variety that play quickly, perhaps frantically...a game that fires neurons and releases dopamine (which I'd argue all good games do)...at least that's what I'm counting on with my first small dice game. Speaking of dice, some people get hooked on just rolling them...the very mechanic independent of its purpose can be "addictive."

To say an "addictive" game is bad is like saying having a game go "viral" is bad...both have negative implications, but who here would be upset about having their game spread like wildfire? Doesn't that mean that you've created something great? Something that may end up creating enough revenue to allow you to MAYBE quit your day job and dive into the game business full-time?

Addiction can fall into negative territory in freemium mobile apps, and that business model depends on that tiny percentage of "hooked" users to generate 99% of the revenue. THAT can grow into an unhealthy pattern...but with a board game, if it brings people together, has an overall positive message and brings joy to those who play it...what can be wrong with that?

Great case in point! Any game or otherwise which has "collection" and the dangling carrot of "completeness" can be terribly addicting...

MtG, Pokemon Go, sports cards, Funko POP! figures...even board games themselves can trigger addictive personalities (ahem, Jason Levine).

That behavior, to some extent, can be "designed-in." Offering any product which is rooted in collection, and advancement through collection, has the ability to create "addicts." I'd say that the goal of any collectible is to find a rabid audience that supports the product; i.e. 2% of the customer base accounts for 90% of the purchases.

I agree this can be dangerous, because with most of these, at the end of the day, your money is largely for naught...to say nothing of what it can do to your personal life in extreme cases. How many dumped their life savings into Beanie Babies??? Designing a product with the intent of "addiction" is where the line gets blurred, and toys can be a prime culprit. Shopkins, Skylanders, Bakugan...all rely on kids desperately wanting more in some quest for power and becoming "whole."

For me the positive side of "addicting" games are simply ones that you love to play repeatedly and share with others, and do not plant one hand in your wallet. If the game can be mentally stimulating or educational in some respect, all the better. Love Letter, Flick 'Em Up, Pandemic and Catan come to mind...and who wouldn't LOVE to say they designed one of those??

The addiction to a game depends on the person, not the game. To me design an addictive game is a very good achievement.

Anyway I dont know someone addicted to a game (fortunately).

I think with board and card games its not really a concern. Yes people can get addicted to it, they can get addicted to gambling with poker too, but in those cases the addiction really seems to come from the players and not the designer.

Some foods clearly seem intended to be addictive too. Stuff like candy, chocolate and alcohol. But for example, say, salmon is not an addictive food. Bust still someone could crave to eat salmon every single day. Can't blame the company supplying the salmon for that.

With videogames, it really is a big concern however. Mostly those free to play games with micro transactions. They represent all that is wrong with videogames these days. I wont touch those games.
I am fine with videogames offering DLC however, as long as the game itself did not feel incomplete at launch and the price of the DLC is fitting for what you get.
But still, its possible to pick those games up a year or more after release with all the extra content for half the price of the full game.
Because unlike boardgames, videogames lose value fast. At this point you cant really sell any game thats merely a year old for the full price unless its GTAV or such.

Personally I would not want to make an addictive game. I do have an interest in mainly writing videogames and developing the concept of the game, but I'd strongly advocate a system that does make good profit but without alienating the playerbase.

First of all of course by launching the game as a full product. For example, the game the next installment of a fighting game series.
I would not exclude the most popular fighters unless it makes sense story wise, like if they died in the last game. I would also aim to have at least as many fighters as in the last installment. If there are less fighters, then there should be other new content to compensate for that, like for example a sidescrolling beat em up mode with co-op.

For a pre order, I'd go with a costume pack or such. Its not vital to the game experience, but it just adds flavour. A year later that costume pack could be released as paid DLC so others can get it too.

For a DLC plan, I'd go with some additional characters. Some that had valid reasons to not be in the main game's story mode, maybe even bring back a popular dead character.
Some new stages and other content too, but always for a fitting price.

But the key thing is that the main game should offer a full experience. Some board games do have the issue of strongly requiring an expansion pack to become good, so thats certainly something to look out for.

As a previous poster said, pay to win games aren't games.

But I'm certain that the people making these games don't give a flying frog about what we think of their games.

There's a pay-to-win aspect to MtG, and most CCG's, as well. But I'm not sure I'd blame the publisher/designers for that. The publishers said, "One of the cards in this pack will be really powerful. That's why it's rare." But it's the players who said, "Then we'll buy four of them so we can win!" I'm pretty sure Richard Garfield never expected people to do that. He expected the rare cards to stay rare and cool and exciting. But that kind of goes out the window when anyone with wallet can snap their fingers and max out on them.

The ones I get a kick out of are the video games that let you pay to skip the grind and go right to the end game. It boggles my mind that actually works. Here's how it goes:
Game Maker: "Do you like playing this game?"
Player: "It's ok. Kind of boring."
Game Maker: "Would you like to play the game even less?"
Player: "Would I!"
Game Maker: "Then pay us some more money."
Player: "Here you go!"

People (or any animal) will become addicted to something that fills a need. I play a mobile game (since 2009) that has seen marriages, homes, businesses, etc, all destroyed due to the addictive nature of some. Some I played with spent upwards of $100k. Children are often targeted to get the money from the parent (that can't say no).

Having said that; I am working on a very fast to play tabletop wargame. My goal is to have a battle last less than 15 mins. I have achieved it. I have done a little playtesting & tweaking (much more to do). In the end, I hope my game is addicting in the sense that someone always wants to play it and see what can be done. As someone up there mentioned; someone addicted will buy for friends. I have no plan to nickel & dime players, but if they want to buy multiple copies for friends & family; why not? In fact, I am doing all I can to create a low level addiction through images, colors, and gameplay. I am not in the business to 'help' people. We, as creators, want one thing the most- to have people use and enjoy what we create.

If you spend your time worrying about what others do, then you will rarely ever do anything yourself. You need to draw a line somewhere. My line is right in front of me- I will try to make something 'addicting', and you try to manage your addiction.

Try to think this way- Do you think Stephen King sits up at night worried that people are getting fired from work for staying home to read his new book? No. He is counting his money and hoping people eventually get a grip on their addiction (like he once did).

'Addiction' is a bad word used to describe something we don't care for. We are all in charge of our own selves and how we deal with things.
If it makes you feel better, replace 'addictive' with 'can't put down/stop thinking of/whatever'.
If I make a game, movie, write a book, make lotion, etc, I don't care what words people want to put on it, as long as they enjoy it and use it.
To me the word 'addiction' is a cop out for most. Just have some self control about it, you have that control over so many other parts of your life. It is too often used as an excuse for what people want but don't want to admit they enjoy.

The guy i the MTG scenario wasn't 'addicted' to MTG or the cards; he found the same outlet that most find, and that is spending money when down to feel better about yourself. This 'pattern' is highly self destructive and we have all seen it play out in various forms.

So, do I want to make something that is 'addictive'? yes, very much. If someone applies that word to something I put out for consumption, then I know I hit the mark. On top of that; when the word 'addictive' is applied to anything, many rush out to 'prove it is not addictive', thus creating a run on a product and generating 'buzz'. How is that a bad thing?
Remember, I, nor you, are in charge of anyone else's actions.

Do you know that much study has been put into Agatha Christie's works and it has been proven that the bulk of her writing is 'physically addictive'? The combinations of words used trigger the release of our own drugs....and that is why she is one of the best selling authors of all time. Is that a bad thing?
We choose when and where to apply 'good' or 'bad' and often times those flip back and forth depending how we feel about other things at the time.

You can start here- http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002728.html

You may also want to look into Joe Vitale, he made a small industry of this & if you can find his original book Hypnotic Writing you may find it utterly fascinating. His 2.0 book is just about writing sales copy, where the original goes in depth.