If this were true nobody would play the games? If people found no benefit or interest they wouldn’t play. Even if you think it’s literally just gambling, which I disagree with, people still find value in that even if it’s destructive.
> no depth
If this were true you couldn’t having skill based matchmaking. If there is no depth then everyone would be as good as everyone else. There would be no strategy to master.
> no cool mechanics
Subjective but I disagree.
> no story nothing
Chess has no story mode but it’s a game people still play. Why do video games need a story 100% of the time? I don’t get this critique.
> and once a player spent x amount of hours realizing that, you simply boot up 20 years old game, so you can have some dopamine rush again.
I disagree. Games today have learned from games of the past. I think most folks would find the mechanics of old games boring compared to games of today. I loved Super Mario 64 as a kid and bought it when they rereleased it for the Switch and found it so boring and infuriating (terrible controls) that I never finished the game. Same with Goldeneye — I played that game so much as a kid but there are so many better games with a similar gameplay loop today. I could probably find some fun in something like surf maps in CS1.6 but it wouldn’t hold my attention for very long.
> people still find value in that even if it’s destructive
I am probably in the 98th percentile of time playing video games, and have a lot of friends that play. I really don't disagree with most of your post, but this sentence grabbed me. A person "finding value" in something destructive is not a "different strokes for different folks" situation.
It's more likely they are caught in a desperate situation, either from chasing money that will never materialize or some other kind of high. The cycle of gambling long term is horrible. It's an addictive and destructive pattern with no end in sight, and it ruins lives, and not just the life of the gambler.
While it's rare for a similarly extreme situation to happen with online games, it's less about losing all of your money and more about losing all of your time. It's not uncommon for people to play these games more compulsively than anything, while having 0 fun. Some are self-aware enough to wish they weren't playing it altogether, while being unable to stop. And I realize this can come off condescending, but some people are unaware that they aren't having fun and are sad at the end of the day, unable to confront why. It would not be wise to fault the people themselves with this behavior. There are games designed to foster this compulsion.
I don't think this is unique to online games. There are certainly single-player games that can impart the same feelings. But there are bad design decisions that are more common to online games that are meant to create addiction. Take daily quests: Where they are present, they are the only decent way to progress in a game. They fucking suck, are universally hated, but people still play everyday, even if they don't feel like it. The game can obviously be balanced to provide better general progression and omit daily quests, which would let people play when they feel like it. But designers choose not to do this, because research shows people play more when they login every day. And the longer people are playing, the more likely they can be monetized.
And that's an inherent issue with recent online games that build a revenue model on micro transactions: They are trying to make you play as long as possible to maximize conversion. That's not a healthy relationship with a customer. These games are distinct from Chess, not because they lack depth or mechanics, but because they are fine-tuned to make you chase the next thing, forever. Many people recognize this, don't enjoy it, and can't stop. The same way many kids are hyper aware of their addiction to scrolling, but continue to scroll.
So yes, people play these games, but that doesn't mean they have value even to the player. They just have the bells and whistles to keep people hooked. For my own part, it's a constant battle to be aware of when I'm having fun and when I'm getting sucked into something unhealthy.
If this were true nobody would play the games? If people found no benefit or interest they wouldn’t play. Even if you think it’s literally just gambling, which I disagree with, people still find value in that even if it’s destructive.
> no depth
If this were true you couldn’t having skill based matchmaking. If there is no depth then everyone would be as good as everyone else. There would be no strategy to master.
> no cool mechanics
Subjective but I disagree.
> no story nothing
Chess has no story mode but it’s a game people still play. Why do video games need a story 100% of the time? I don’t get this critique.
> and once a player spent x amount of hours realizing that, you simply boot up 20 years old game, so you can have some dopamine rush again.
I disagree. Games today have learned from games of the past. I think most folks would find the mechanics of old games boring compared to games of today. I loved Super Mario 64 as a kid and bought it when they rereleased it for the Switch and found it so boring and infuriating (terrible controls) that I never finished the game. Same with Goldeneye — I played that game so much as a kid but there are so many better games with a similar gameplay loop today. I could probably find some fun in something like surf maps in CS1.6 but it wouldn’t hold my attention for very long.