Super Mario Run was also always-online for no reason, you couldn't play without an internet connection.

And it wasn't a particularly impressive game. There's no shortage of endless runners on mobile, and Nintendo didn't do much to differentiate themselves, so it's no surprise nobody bought it.

I think the always-online thing is a DRM thing. I could be wrong, though.

As for the game itself: I've played it, and it's a pretty decent runner with the physics of New Super Mario Bros. Wii/U, but it's just not the same as the more full-fledged games. It's fun to pick up and play, but not groundbreaking or particularly special.

I was really disappointed by that choice. I had wanted to buy it for a plane trip I had shortly after it came out, but being online only, they lost that sale.

It seemed like an anti-piracy move because the game didn’t naturally need to be online. But I never thought iPhone app piracy was much of a concern.

And it required making an account to play. Instant uninstall without trying from plenty of people.

The online-only aspect of it killed it for me. I lived in an area with spotty cell service when it came out, meaning a game that would otherwise be a great time killer was unplayable due to the DRM.

They have the data so they would certainly know better than me, but my anecdotal experience was just so wildly different. I bought it, and nearly everyone I know did. It was a great game, and did not of the scummy things that so many games did! The always online and the "won't run on rooted device" checks were very annoying to me, but it didn't exceed my tolerance threshold. I and many others praised them for just charging a one time payment for the whole game. My anecdotal experience made me very optimistic that Nintendo was going to prove that you didn't have to be scummy! Apparently not.

Yeah, but you only spent $10. The investors aren't going to stand for that crap when all these other companies are scamming their way to thousands. $10 or $4000 in revenue...take your pick. Gambling needs defined and outlawed in every way possible.

The recent supreme court ruling that released the sports gambling hounds has me gobsmacked with absolute disbelief.

This is such a strange take.

From a legal standpoint, why is it a qualified use of government paternalism to outlaw gambling? We should not be asking the government to set laws based on morality.

Practically speaking, and apologies in advance for how obvious this argument is…when you ban gambling, it doesn’t disappear, it simply goes underground. Criminal actors benefit while the state is unable to enforce any protections or see any recompense. Moreover, it’s unclear what brightline exists between “gambling” and a ton of economic decisions. If I buy a plot of land because I think it might have oil, is that gambling? When I lock in an insurance policy, is that gambling?

I get it’s popular to immediately call for government enforcement whenever you experience personal moral outrage, but the real world contains far more nuance. Making gambling and some of its “sinful” corollaries like drug use illegal has never solved the problem, and has exacerbated it for the worst off.

I'm totally fine with allowing gambling at the condition that it be completely off limits to minors and it be properly labelled and easy to filter out. But now, what we see is games specifically targeting children are rife with gambling type mechanism to get the child to spend money. As for the App Store, sure they display that there might be micro transactions, but the hardly tell you if they are of the gem types or the "10$ to unlock full game" types. I also should be able to have an option in a menu somewhere to completely hide all those gambling type games. Right now, when I go look for games, I specifically filter for only the paid ones, yet those games still want to double dip and get you to pay micro transaction, which just discourages me from spending my money at all.

> when you ban gambling, it doesn’t disappear, it simply goes underground.

I don't care if randos gamble in a back alley, I just don't want my kids to open up Google Play and over 90% of the games are just gambling.

I don't want gambling forced on me as the vast majority of ethical games dry up because they're all going "whale hunting".

> We should not be asking the government to set laws based on morality.

What an odd opinion. What about laws against murder, fraud, or narcotics? Aren't those also based on morality?

You can remove the debatable morality aspect and focus on the practical implications.

It is deemed a qualified use to limit gambling because gambling addiction hurts more than just the addict. Their family suffers, maybe society suffers because of crime. Limiting (not outlawing) allows for outreach, voluntary blacklists, escape for their family should they cross the line and other safety measures.

As for the brightline between economic decisions: yeah, the definition is not perfect. Poker isn't gambling for some definitions because it is 'a game of skill'. While buying a plot of land with oil is certainly a skill AND it is expected to generate profits. But we can't protect as m well against hopeful stupidity.

Buying an insurance policy isn't gambling as it reduces risk. ...selling one is gambling if you didn't do the math though.

I think I agree on your take on gambling and some of its “sinful” corollaries, but aren't this and other dark patterns more about tricking and fooling people into something? At a casino I know it is money in, very likely no money out, maybe big money. Here it is money in, for a chance to play better against.. what even humans, or just more virtualities?

I know i know, where to draw the line will be superhard or impossible, but this has the touch of plain betrayal to me, that classic gambling hasn't (as long as it is fair).

If you think gambling is about morality, you must've been very isolated from it's negative effects.

Gambling is about addiction, and addiction is a disease.

It's not about morality. If enough of the population goes down the tubes drinking alcohol or smoking opium the people will make it illegal.

Government == people, like your mom.

I don't fully disagree with you, but it's not so simple. I only paid $10, but I've paid $0 to all the others. Same for the people I know with one exception. It's got to be a small number of total users that spend thousands in a game, so it seems reasonable to think that the revenue could be comparable when everyone pays something.

Would be really interesting to get some hard data

You would be blown away at how many people without money spend $4000 in a short time.

I worked with a guy who spent thousands on World of Tanks when it launched 12years ago (free to play, and they didn't have anything that was pay-to-win or that resembled gambling). His income was about $40k and he had a family to support. I have since run into others who have blown similar amounts or more on mobile gaming. These people are slowly, quietly ruining their lives.

I played Mario run when it came out and loved it.

Recently installed it on my son’s iPad. The game has totally transformed into this kind of crap.

They added some daily bonus type stuff that may seem similar at first--I think they did that because it's what the mobile market largely expects, sadly--but there's nothing tied to payment, and it's pretty easy to just play the game.

I’m looking at it now and not seeing that it has.

I always found it weird how mobile phone apps/games trigger the "happy to pay £10 for a pizza, but not happy to pay £10 for hours of entertainment" attitude in people.

Is it perhaps because they spent a few hundred/thousand £ on the phone itself and see that as the complete price?