In today’s online gaming world, social games are all the rage. All around the world, millions of players are using the mobile phones and logging into Facebook to access highly interactive titles.
Recently, casino games have been added into the mix – and, although players are not required to spend real cash, some wonder if these games are grooming young people to become gamblers.
As such, some politicians believe that social gaming should be regulated, and a mock trial was held at the International Gambling and Risk Taking Conference last week to determine the best course of action.
Alpha Co.
The mock trial was focused on the fictitious company of Alpha Co., likely referencing social gaming operator Zynga. The company is responsible for such popular social games as Lazy Birds and Words with Frenemies, but the mock trial dealt with the company’s social gambling application, Slottapalooza.
The Slottapalooza Controversy
Slottapalooza is a social slots game that allows players to wager digital currency on online slots games. Players do not win real cash prizes and they are not required to spend any money in order to play. However, they do have the option of purchasing in-game perks and additional credits.
Sound familiar? Double Down Casino, Jackpot Joy and countless other social gambling apps operate on the same premise.
In Playerville, gambling is defined as a game of luck that players spend real money on in order to win cash prizes. However, a new law has changed the definition so that any two of these stipulations combined is ‘gambling’. Now, social casino games cannot operate unless being approved by the local gaming commission, and Alpha Co is not pleased with the development – and they have taken Playerville to court.
The Case Against Social Games Regulation
Mitch Kamin, lawyer for Alpha Co., opened with a statement regarding problem gamblers and their social habits. He stated that compulsive gamblers are not interested in socializing or playing interactive games, so there is little risk that social slots will feed their addictions.
There is also the fact that the games do not allow players to win real cash prizes, so real gamblers do not feel compelled to take part in social slots and casino games.
The Case For Regulation
Responsible gambling advocates believe that social casino games are a ‘training ground’ for problem gamblers. They normalize gambling behaviour, which is especially harmful for young people who are unaware of the risks of the activity. Even though there is less chance for players to overspend on slots, which teaches them unrealistic perspectives on gambling.
So, they believe that the government should weigh in on the types of social games that can be accessed by individuals of all ages, and determine the potential harm of some social casino games.
