Slot Machine Skinner Box

by

In simple terms Borderlands 2 resembles a slot machine, another example of a Skinner Box, creating ‘player motivations more directed towards long-term, potentially great, gains (Colchester.N 2012)’. Upon reaching the Level Cap, the player enters a stage known as End-Game. We have no interest in Skinner Box voting or political slot machines on loan from the state! The Occupy movement is not just a protest. It’s a roadmap that leads from the election booth to the public square. It challenges the conventional wisdom of the ballot, and instead points to.

Slot Machine Skinner Box Method

The Psychology behind Slot Machines

Slots are some of the most widely played games at both land based and online casinos, but have you ever wondered why? What is so attractive about this games that players keep returning to them.

To understand this we'll examine the psychology behind slots and how casinos use this to their advantage to keep players gambling.

Slot machines are based on basic psychological principles identified by B.F Skinner in the 1960's. Skinner is renowned for an experiment that he conducted wherein pigeons were placed in a box (which came to be known as the Skinner box) and given a food pellet every time they pressed a lever. He then altered the box so that the pellets would only be awarded randomly when the pigeon pressed the lever. This system was referred to as variable ratio enforcement and the pigeons pressed the lever more often in this set-up and Skinner likened his box set-up to a slot machine.

In essence, the Skinner box operates by mixing tension and release ‐ the pigeon learns to press the lever to obtain a treat, and then when the pellet is not awarded when the lever is pressed an expectation is created that finds release when the food item is awarded on subsequent presses. Skinner discovered that if too little rewards were given, the bird would become frustrated and would stop pressing the lever, and if too many pellets were awarded the bird pressed the lever less frequently.

At this point if you're a slots player you may feel slightly insulted, because, after all, you're way more intelligent than a bird..right? Of course, but that doesn't mean that the same principles don't apply to humans. Think about it ‐ most multi-line slots pay out smaller, more frequent wins rather than paying out large jackpots, yet these machines have maintained their popularity amongst player for decades.

According to associate professor at MIT Natasha Schüll who has been involved in slots research for 15 years, slots continue the video poker trend by dolling out smaller wins in order to keep players on an even keel and not jolt their emotions too intensely in the form of either losses or wins. Schüll's research has shown that smaller wins are favoured by casinos, not only to curb losses but also because too-big wins cause players to pause, think about the money involved, cashout and leave, but stretching out game play with smaller wins allows them to stay in the flow and keep playing, enjoying one small reward after the next without any perceived risk whatsoever.

It is no wonder then that modern slot machines payout around 45 percent of all spins instead of the miniscule 3 percent that their predecessors offered.

Schüll's findings are supported by a white paper published in 2010 by the American Gaming Association which stated that games with lower volatilities generally have greater appeal in 'local markets' as opposed to casino resort destinations like Las Vegas, Macau and Atlantic City. They found that players usually played low volatility casino games for longer periods, which has led to the popularity and expansion of gambling worldwide.

The introduction of slots bonus games has also aided in boosting their popularity thanks to the fact that players can now enjoy not only the chance of winning, but added entertainment and opportunities for rewards within these mini games. In these games, players are generally required to pick something on a second screen (also called a 'pick 'em bonus') and are rewarded accordingly. This feature gives players a sense that they are employing a certain amount of skill and are earning rewards for that. The truth of the matter is that all results are random and there really is no skill behind it, yet still we feel pretty great when we pick the symbol with the highest possible reward.

Add to this the sounds and lights that are incorporated into the game, triggering for even inconsequential wins, and you keep feeling excited and rewarded almost the entire time you play.

One also cannot discount the emotional appeal of these games, which are specifically designed using well-loved and familiar themes and graphics ‐ like those from popular TV series and movies (think the Jurassic Park, Game of Thrones, Wheel of Fortune, Friends and Baywatch slots). The games may all be similar in design, but when we find one with a theme we love, we're likely to play a great deal more than on a slot featuring something that isn't that appealing to us.

As you can see an entire arsenal of psychological programming and consideration goes into slots design. Some will argue that this is unethical and is designed to trap players, but most of us simply acknowledge that it's what makes these games great and keeps us coming back for more. And if you're enjoying yourself and playing responsibly, does all the rest really matter? That's entirely up to you.

Dinofarm Forums member “SwiftSpear” wrote up an article yesterday which caused a strong reaction in me. While I am really excited that a lot of new people have started writing about game design, I also don’t agree with all, or most, of what people write. But this particular article is way wronger than average on something that’s really important, so I am deciding to take some time out of my day to go through it and tell people why.

First things first - all UK online casinos must have a valid license from the UKGC. Without it, they have no legal rights to accept players from the UK. Now, the license alone doesn’t guarantee that the casino management is safe, as the commission can only watch them that closely. It should take you very few minutes to register for a casino account, claim a bonus and spin a ‘century’ of free reels at any 100 free spins no deposit casino in the UK. Online casinos typically offer free play to new players before making the first deposit. These are free credits that must be used within a particular time frame. The sole focus of All British Casino is to provide the UK casino Public with the best possible playing experiences. Part of this includes offering a sizeable selection of the best online casino games on the market! All British Casino players can enjoy the highest-quality and most entertaining games from a range of renowned vendors. The UK Gambling Commission is constantly updating its licensing conditions, i.e. The rules all UK casinos have to follow. The commission's mission is to make playing in an online casino safer and more transparent. The new rules tackle business practices deemed harmful to. Casinos Online is managed by a team of experts on UK online casinos and UK online gambling. We provide valuable information on UK gambling laws, best UK casino sites for 2019, best slot games for UK players, and the biggest UK online casino bonuses. In brief, we are an excellent online guide for UK players looking for the best online casinos, new casinos, games, and bonuses in the industry. /all-uk-online-casinos.html.

Here is the opening paragraph.

A major meme running the rounds in game designdom right now is the dangerous evil of Skinner boxes, and how we really need to stop making games that are just Skinner boxes. We especially hate games like Pokemon Go or Clash of Clans. These insidious creations encourage you to log on at least once a day for an extra reward of seeing your resource bar creep up a little each time you put energy into the game. Their evil plan is clearly to addict players with this scientifically proven simple reward method which humans have no ability to resist, thus we will ultimately take our time energy and money against our will. Clearly Supercell, Niantic, etc, are key players in the downfall of society!

From my vantage point, it is not a “major meme running the rounds in game design right now”. I would say that probably peaked around 2010 or, after the release of Farmville and other Facebook games. In my view, it seems like very few people are writing articles about Skinner boxes and how evil they are (here‘s the last time I spoke about it, almost two years ago). But even if this is the case, framing his argument with a “the downfall of society” strawman is a really bad way to start the article. We’ll come back to that later.

Key Point

Machine

The main thesis statement of the article is that the distinction of “Skinner Box” isn’t useful because ultimately, all interactive entertainment are pressing the same dopamine buttons in your brain.

All that Skinner did was basic mapping of this universal process present in all higher level living things. The complexity of the action required nor the diversity of the reward earned does not invalidate the basic mechanic under which we learn to repeat an action. So it’s still a skinner box if the action required to get a reward is dense and multi dimensional like “solve this complex calculus problem”, and the reward is abstract and immaterial like “the joy of learning”.

It’s actually a pretty simple argument. He goes on to talk about how the reward could be anything—a pellet of food (as in Skinner’s operant conditioning chamber), a random cash payout (as in slots) or some understanding/learning (as in Chess). He goes on, then, to say that all games are really Skinner boxes, which of course, destroys the term.

Why he’s wrong

If you accept the claims of this article, there is never any reason to use the term Skinner box ever again, because it’s really just “game design”. So it’s important to understand that we are talking about losing this distinction.

It is true, of course, that there is something in common there, but it’s a little bit like saying that the distinction between rocks and human beings is meaningless because ultimately they’re both composed of atoms. Or perhaps a better analogy is people who define “altruism” out of existence by saying “well, technically, ultimately everything is done for selfish reasons!”

Slot Machine Skinner Box Definition

We don’t interact with any system, ever, at all, that we don’t believe we’ll get some reward out of.

Yes, it is true that ultimately, we do everything we do for a reward. This isn’t just limited to interactive entertainment, by the way! So maybe we should also not have a distinction between interactive entertainment and other kinds of activities, since they all just give us “rewards”.

This section struck me as particularly strange, and possibly nodding to some generally bad ideas about game design.

We also don’t really like games that satisfy us. I mean, we enjoy playing them, and we might write a nice review about them, but we’ll usually just put them away after that and do not look at them again. We’re far more enamored with the promise of something more. Games which bring us back with hidden secrets (which reward you semi-randomly for taking time to explore and search more vigorously) and increasing ingame power for time invested are the games we go back to over and over again.

Slot Machine Skinner Box Game

Words

Back to the altruism example: it is probably true that ultimately everyone does things for selfish reasons, if you drill down far enough on their reasoning. However, that does not mean that we can’t make a fair distinction between some actions that are more altruistic than others. Me spending $10 on candy is probably less altruistic than me donating that same $10 to the ACLU. Yes, ultimately, you can say that both of them are motivated by self-interest, but the distinction still seems useful in a practical sense.

Or let’s talk about candy. Hey, maybe we shouldn’t have a “candy” distinction, because ultimately, it’s all just calories, right? Maybe the answer is that we just need to make better candy!

The fact that we can boil down to crazy edge cases or ultimate causes should not lead us to throwing distinctions like “candy”, “altruism”, or, indeed, “skinner box” in the garbage.

It is patently obvious that there is a meaningful difference between slot machines and chess. Swiftspear’s argument would have to lead us to believe that they are both the same, since they both have strong dopamine-button-pressing abilities. But the distinction that chess is challenging and involves learning seems significant enough. Some games are challenging, engaging, difficult, and much more like learning a musical instrument, and some games are more like getting into heroin.

SwiftSpear tries to address this point here:

As game designers, we TOTALLY should be doing our best to provide value to players outside of the raw feels produced by Skinarrian rewards, but in all honesty, that strategic trick which allows you to crush your Civilization V opponents is probably nearly completely useless in real life. The fact that it feels so great to master is AWESOME, but it’s completely and totally Skinarrian reward. You’re not going to actually use that thing to beat the stock market or build the next great startup.

While I appreciate his “honesty”, the litmus test is not, and has never been, “does this skill translate to some other discipline in real life?” That is not where strategy games get their value—also, no one thinks that that’s where strategy games get their value. This is again an attempt to say that because ultimately it’s all dopamine bumps, it’s all the same, which is about as useful as saying that humans and rocks are all just atoms.

I would go as far as to say that while Diablo or Pokemon (to me, classic Skinner Box examples in videogames) are highly addictive (by design), games such as Chess or Puerto Rico really don’t seem like something you’d want to apply the term “addictive” to. “Interested” seems like a better term, but sometimes they are almost the opposite of addictive. They’re punishing sometimes, in the same way that it is punishing to learn a language or to learn a musical instrument. You are constantly screwing up and feeling like you’re bad at it, and it’s hard, especially in the beginning.

I remember a couple of years ago playing Fallout Shelter. I didn’t feel any of that kind of “punishing” difficulty. I didn’t really feel interested, either. I just felt compelled. While you’re playing, you have this tired, weary impatience: “just let me at the next treasure already…” It can’t even be called curiosity, it’s just compulsion.

Skinner box suggests that a videogame is primarily focused around creating addictive compulsion and not anything else. Yes, addictive compulsion does give the player something, and maybe you can argue that the “random” reward schedule of wins and losses in a competitive game makes it share some qualities of a Skinner box. But you can not argue that “all that is going on in Chess is that it has created an addictive compulsion loop”, whereas you basically can say that for Fallout Shelter.

Skinner Box Slot Machine

Slot

Why It’s Important

This seems like an important distinction, and so I will definitely continue using the term in the future.

/reno-plastic-slot-machine-bank.html. A round area for a dime is across at the top. At the back is a lever that can be moved from Jackpot to Play. The bank is 6' high, 4' wide, and 2.5' thick. Beneath that is a key opening for removing the coins.

And actually, despite SwiftSpear’s claim that “everyone is talking about Skinner boxes”, I think not enough people are talking about it. Addiction, generally speaking, is a major problem in society. It’s most harmful when it’s drug addiction, but gambling addiction is also up there. And some of these modern F2P games that have in-app purchases and everything come weirdly close to being a Las Vegas-style casino. In some ways, it’s extra problematic because they put colorful, harmless-looking cartoon characters all over it, suggesting that it’s just a kid’s toy. People have a decent understanding of what a casino is; they don’t yet really understand what these cute apps are yet.

What we need is an campaign to educate people about how these things work so that they can make more informed decisions about how they spend their time. This is why it pisses me off to see people who, beyond just ignoring the issue, would go out of their way to actively write an article suggesting that we diminish or destroy the distinction.

And make no mistake, while it’s unethical to abuse addicted players for financial gain, you DEFINITELY should be making a game which players can get addicted to.

Okay, so you’re saying make an addictive thing but… don’t profit off of it? Really, it’s bizarre that he would volunteer the idea of “ethics” only to lazily half-brush-it-aside. If I was writing this article there is no way I would bring up “ethics” because it

Minecraft is a WAY WAY WAAAAAAY better Skinner box than slot machines are (Auro too).

That’s funny, because people seem to play slots a lot longer than they do either of those things. And sure, Minecraft was successful, but I will bet you anything that in 10 years, few will be playing Minecraft, but people will still be playing slots.

I don’t want to be discouraging, but why did SwiftSpear feel compelled to write this article? Here is where I believe he shows his hand:

The Legend of Zelda executes the usage of operant conditioning brilliantly. First you enjoy raw exploration, finding amazing and interesting looking scenes. Then you enjoy defeating monsters. Next you enjoy finding hidden objects. After that you enjoy solving puzzles and the feeling of intelligence that gives you. Finally you enjoy unlocking the next plot point. Each of these enjoyable thing is a reward the game meters out to you on a reasonably deliberate schedule.

Behold: the punchline to his strawman opening. The existence of this paragraph suggests that the actual reason for writing this article was more or less, “I like Zelda, and I don’t like that people have theory that suggests bad things about it!” or, “I want to justify/rationalize my Zelda addiction.”

The most charitable reading of this article would be something like, “I think all games should be engaging and compelling and keep the player playing.” I agree with this, in the loosest sense possible. But in that way, it’s kind of a deepity, because no one would disagree with such a statement.

If people like Zelda, or Pokemon, or Diablo, or whatever, that’s fine and you should continue to play those things if you enjoy them. But don’t try to create some “theory” to justify it that suggests actually they are indistinguishable from strategy games. Just accept that you are hooked on a sort of dumb, addictive videogame. We’ve all been there.

Skinner box is actually a great term, because sure, everything we like playing maybe uses B.F. Skinner’s operant conditioning on some level. But it’s the box part of “Skinner box” that points out that that’s all this thing is.