Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Riley_Gutzeit comments on Superstimuli and the Collapse of Western Civilization - Less Wrong

60 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 16 March 2007 06:10PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (82)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Riley_Gutzeit 17 March 2007 05:26:45AM 8 points [-]

"Game software might evolve not just to be more addictive, but to be safer, since killing the customer is counteproductive." -- mtraven

Argument from group selection. Killing the customer is bad for the industry, but not for the company. If everyone plays the most fun game on the market, and 10% of its players die annually from playing it, and you come up with a new, more entertaining game that will give you the entire market but with a 15% annual death rate, you don't get rich by trying to save lives.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 01 November 2010 12:01:13PM 5 points [-]

Also, an occasional "died playing" story might signal "really entrancing game" and work as advertising.

Comment author: Carinthium 13 November 2010 02:48:54AM 4 points [-]

On the other hand, at least some of the market are likely to be deterrred by such stories. (The risk of government intervention also increases, but that's bad for the industry not the company)

Comment author: [deleted] 20 February 2012 06:20:05PM 1 point [-]

If companies had legal liability for deaths stochastically caused by their games, there would be negative feedback pressure on the individual company.