Last week Microsoft unveiled World Series of Poker: Full House Pro Official for Xbox Live Arcade, a free-to-play sim designed to carve off a share of the monstrous, well-entrenched online card gaming market, following in the footsteps of paid-for titles like Full House Poker and Poker Smash.
In itself, this is nothing to get worked up about - the game is a tidy, well-presented little package, playable across Xbox 360, tablets and PCs, and wagers aren't made in real cash. If you're a parent, fear not - your progeny aren't going to spend you into a state of casual criminal activity while your back's turned. However, the presence of free-to-play card-sharping on Xbox hints at a broader market shift I'm not entirely comfortable with.
This is partly because gamblers are popping up in unexpected places - as reported by The Independent, bookmakers have taken full advantage of online platforms to reach those who don't visit their branches, like stay-at-home spouses and gadget-equipped city boys. The UK gambling market is predicted to be worth over £2 billion by the end of 2013.
The nature and pace of this expansion may seem familiar - it calls to mind the explosion in browser-based "social games" during more or less the same period. Parallels between gaming and gambling go back further than that, however - you used to find both one-armed bandits and Street Fighter down the arcades, and partly as a consequence, games and gambling share a visual vocabulary, all scattershot bling and giant slabs of fruit. Sonic 2's Casino Night Zone is a level-sized homage to those common origins.
Both industries have built on this shared terrain in recent history. In keeping with the rest of the digital trade, gambling services often "gamify" their offerings to ease in new players. Developers, meanwhile, frequently use gambling as an in-game diversion or supporting mechanic - take the PlayStation-era Final Fantasy titles, for instance, or Black Ops 1's Wager Matches.
There's nothing all that sinister about such crossover, were it not for a couple of more recent developments. One, the upfront-payment model appears to be flat-lining, and publishers are accordingly experimenting with a range of alternative revenue models.
The most common categories are ad-supported experiences and micro-transactions, but EA has also quietly road-tested the element of chance as a motivator to pay up - the precise contents of FIFA 13 Ultimate Team player packs (and Mass Effect 3's gear packs) are unknown till you plonk the dosh. It's a sweet idea, redolent of buying packets of trading cards, and hardly the kind of thing you write outraged letters to your MP about, but it may propel things in an undesirable direction.
Gambling and sports go hand in hand, of course - there's barely a real-world sport on this planet you can't bet on - and as videogames complete their descent from culture's attic, so the likelihood that they will join football in the arms of Ladbrokes and co increases.
I can't say I welcome the prospect. Again, gambling does no harm to a majority of those who indulge - but when it does, the consequences can be severe. Gaming is still weathering mistrust as to so-called "links" between violent media and violent behaviour, along with general misgivings about the industry's rapport with children and young adults. Is an escalating risk of impulsive control disorder really an ingredient we want to add to that mix?
14 comments so far...
fracturedrich on 28 Jan '13 said:
So what you saying we will be able to bet on who gets the most headshots in a round, or who gets the highest k/d ratio,if you see my name on that betting slip ,lay it lads.
FishyGinger on 29 Jan '13 said:
I blame Ray Winstone and the Foxy Bingo Fox.
OXM ETboy on 29 Jan '13 said:
That's your answer to everything, Fishy.
FishyGinger on 29 Jan '13 said:
Are you saying that 6ft tall fox isn't to blame?
OXM ETboy on 29 Jan '13 said:
The fox is just a puppet. Those leprechauns you see in browsers are the brains of the operation.
thewrongtrousers on 29 Jan '13 said:
Not exactly sure that's what the article is saying, something along the lines, that gambling is bad sometimes, and gaming and gambling could go together, but shouldn't always go together and that putting gambling and gaming together could possibly be bad, but then might not actually be.
Not sure your example would work with real money it is far to open to abuse. You get spot fixing in professional sports you do something similar where there is no professional regulatory body and you'd have chaos. Also far to difficult to implement in most senarios. Yes you could have one player vs another in FIFA but EA would have to introduce odds based on previous games played and / or just compete with similar level players as otherwise who would want to compete with the world's best you would just be throwing money away.
Having said that you almost start another side industry. Forza races for example with prize money from entry fees, could lead to real money being exchanged (already does unofficially of course) for vehicle settings and paintwork.
I'm all for Major League Gaming, would never have the time myself but its a logical step in the progression of the industry. I have always wondered why some big company e.g. Red Bull doesn't sponser a Forza online tournament or similar with prize money, or even fund a DLC track where every race winner recieves $1 or something for a set period of time.
OXM ETboy on 29 Jan '13 said:
I guess the article is more just an invitation to consider the subject at large. As you say, it's not terribly decisive :p But then, this is an emerging thing - I'm honestly not sure how it will pan out.
Grummy on 29 Jan '13 said:
It's a worthy article discussing the dangers of gambling in general and of online/computerized gambling, but it doesn't really say anything that gives me pause to think the games industry has any need to be worried about it. An industry that lives and dies on the success of CoD, Fifa and Madden NFL, with Bethesda R*, Ubi and 2K games as important supporting titles (purely in terms of year on year profit), gambling, even if MS and Sony allowed gambling games for real money on their systems en masse, would be nothing but a peripheral entertainment. MS can claim to do a lot of things with the 360, it can talk about creating the ultimate media hub, but nobody is buying a 360 to play Full Tilt Poker. As with gambling in general, the only people who should be worried is that portion of the gaming community who are likely to gambling addicts as it is. For the industry though, it's people aren't going to stop buying consoles and playing CoD/Fifa just because they can play gambling games.
Mendes on 29 Jan '13 said:
At the very least I'd hope that the likes of the Daily Mail, with their non-sensationalist objective reporting techniques will wade in with an "Evil Video Games aim to turn nation in to Gambling Addicts : Apocalypse to Follow" headline, (note my accurate use of upper / lower case), considering all FPS's are to blame for any gun massacre that happens I'd expect this at the very least.
thewrongtrousers on 29 Jan '13 said:
Sorry I was just being flippant, it is interesting to see how it will pan out. While I enjoy playing poker I just wouldn't play a pseudo version with no money involved. At the moment there does seem to be a distinct lack of psuedo versions of any form of gambling in video games. A few games, normally open world or sandbox, have some form of gambling either on cards, casinos or driving. However where is the betting on horses, dogs, football and other sports - next GTA maybe? Does anyone know if there are any gambling simulators around on Indie games?
Baryonyx on 29 Jan '13 said:
It is definitely a matter we should give thought to. What disturbs me is how pervasive gambling has become. The industry has taken to the digital/wireless age like a duck to water. Previously, you had to seek gambling out. Now it will come to you.
I don't gamble. I'm sure I could without getting addicted, but I can think of better ways to spend my cash. Buying computer games, for instance. I asked my friends and colleagues who gamble if they had actually profited from their exploits. None of them had, despite making a few big wins here and there, they are habitual gamblers who fritter money away on their hobby. Gambling doesn't become a £2 billion a year industry by making the man on the street rich. Unfortunately, through work I have seen the dark side of gambling, when it's not just throwing away £10 on a horse for a quick thrill. I've seen people ending up on the street after losing their homes, people committing crime to feed their habit, selling their families lives out from under them to get their fix. I've seen it lead to suicide.
Whilst I doubt a quick flutter here or there will do much harm, and I doubt my friends and colleagues will end up living in a homeless hostel with a drink problem and the happy years cast irretrievably into the past, there are many vulnerable people out there who I am distinctly uncomfortable with gambling at large reaching out to. Society doesn't understand the true nature of gambling yet, but we are getting there. Much in the same way as smoking was seen as harmless, gambling is still largely viewed as a bit of fun. Behind it all are some greedy shareholders getting very, very rich.
NB: BBC's Panorama did a good documentary on gambling a little while ago, with a good section on how interactive gaming machines are changing the way people gamble. Interesting and mildly disturbing viewing.
STE MO on 29 Jan '13 said:
In the words of an American "Videogames bad! Guns, gambling and prostitution good" with these ethics we are onto a winner.
GHOSTY05 on 29 Jan '13 said:
I bet you lot £10 this never happens!
thewrongtrousers on 29 Jan '13 said:
I'll take some of that bet
Hang on what exactly am I betting never happens?