You planted corn, but someone offers you a deal on grape vines that would require losing a field of corn. You planned to hire a plant scientist, but now they're more expensive than they were. Will you go against the plan?
If the rules of the game changed once, what is the chance of them changing again? If I decide to remove the field of corn, is there a chance I could later get even better deal on corn? If the scientists are more expensive that I thought, so I replace them with workers, is there a chance I could later find that workers are less efficient than advertized, so I would had a better deal with the scientists?
We should make certain that what the game percieves as a sunk cost fallacy is really a sunk cost fallacy and not something else, for example a rational update on the fact that the game sometimes changes the rules while playing.
One solution is that the game would announce that the change happens exactly once per level. It could be emphasised by having a "SECRET" card, that in the middle of the game turns and reveals a hidden rule. (The fact that there are no more "SECRET" cards on the screen should make us feel safe about no more hidden rules.) The game should not judge player for what they did before the card was shown -- perhaps they had some estimate about the hidden rule, and already optimized on this estimate. But after the rule is shown, the game should reward player in how well they played the rest of the game.
For example: You need 5000 credits to win the game. After 2000 credits a "SECRET" card is played and the existing situation is saved. At the end the game shows you the alternative ending from the saved point.
To condense what I see as your point: We don't want to change something and then quickly change it back, or it punishes people for changing.
But then again, the goal isn't to teach people to change - it's to teach people to make correct decisions. If something feels like punishment, that's a game design flaw - you want to make peoples' choices feel interesting, informed and impactful. The real culprit seems to be either withholding information about changes form the player (could be counteracted by giving notice ahead of time and being clearer about what ...
Last month, mobile gaming superstar Angry Birds was out-sold in some countries by DragonBox, a kids game in which players solve alegbra equations.
How does the game work? Jonathan Liu explains:
The key to DragonBox's success is not that it's the best algebra tutorial available, but rather that it's actually fun for its target audience to play.
Others have noticed the potential of "computer-assisted education" before. Aubrey Daniels writes:
Remember what works in reinforcement: Small reinforcements are fine, but the reinforcer should immediately follow the target behavior, and it should be conditional on the specific behavior you want to strengthen.
Video games are perfect for that! Little hits of reinforcement can be given many times a minute, conditional on exactly the kind of behavior your want to reinforce, and conditional on exactly the behavior you want to reinforce.
DragonBox is just a particularly successful implementation of this insight.
One of the goals for the Center for Applied Rationality is to develop rationality games and apps. But it's tricky to think of how to make addictive games that actually teach rationality skills. So I'd like to provide a place for people to brainstorm ideas about what would make an addictive and instructive rationality game.
See also: Rationality and Video Games, Gamification and Rationality Training, Raytheon to Develop Rationality-Training Games.