For many it might be just a type of relaxed enjoyment (shutting the brain off) - and that's fine!
The OP is likely talking about what those games _exploit_: It's the few that will play the game to an extreme degree and likely pay tons of money to do so (often called "whales" but not all of them are).
The mechanism behind this is grounded in how our brain rewards us if we find seemingly rare patterns of success. And some percentage of people are susceptible to that kind of manipulation.
Whether you put the blame on the game or the players is another question, maybe a philosophical or ideological one. But to dismiss the mechanism as simply "enjoying something" implies that you don't recognize the problem as an addiction that may or may not be willingly exploited here.
For comparison: Walk into a casino or similar which has one-armed bandits. Tell me that the people hanging out there are truly enjoying it.
I hear you, but like the OP, your argument is still based entirely around absolutes, and is rather dismissive of the vast spectrum of human behavior. Just because some people get lost in the addictive mechanisms of a game, doesn't mean everyone does, and an addictive mechanism is not universally malicious just because someone becomes addicted to it. If that were true, every company and product would be considered malicious, because everything on the planet is designed to be addictive to some degree.
My grandmother and aunt, for example, visit a local casino once in a while and exclusively play slots. They each bring $20 and play until they've either doubled it or lost it. I've gone with them on a few occasions, and can personally attest that they genuinely enjoy the experience of playing the game -- my grandmother even says "wheeeee" out loud while pulling the lever. I, on the other hand, do not enjoy casinos at all, and easily get caught up in the addictive aspects. Is the casino malicious because I, personally, am more susceptible to addictive behavior? Should my grandmother not be allowed to have her fun because of someone else's addiction?
At the end of the day, my experience is not my grandmother's experience. And your experience is not my experience. And the OP's experience isn't a universal truth, no matter how much they want to insist it is.
I very much agree with the general point that you make. What I'm personally concerned with is the power relation between the casino or game publisher and the group of players that are susceptible to addiction (specifically not your grandmother - in fact I found it very fun to imagine how she enjoys playing).
In my opinion when there is an asymmetric power relation like that, then there is a question of responsibility. Especially if the incentive is to exploit the relation - which is almost undeniable in this case.
So I'm not making a statement about the general case and I don't think things can be boiled down to "this type of game is evil". It's the specific connection between these two extremes that I find worrying, or saddening really. But I'm 100% not the type of person who would deny your grandmother her fun. I think these types of problems start with things like education and attempting to heal the human connection between the powerful and the weak (sorry for the pathos).
I appreciate the clarification, and I do think we're pretty much on the same page. There is definitely an overall responsibility to be a more-helpful-than-harmful member of society, and particularly when it comes to something like a casino, it's probably nearly impossible to prevent greed from manifesting as malicious intent. But as I detailed at length in another comment, it's a slippery slope trying to figure out where "the line" is.
In my grandmother's case, those trips to the casino actually greatly benefit her. At 94 years old, the casino provides a level of sociability and exercise that she doesn't get otherwise. That said, even the particular casino she visits most likely does more harm than good to the local community. Not by a lot, but by enough. Unfortunately, the perception of whether that crosses the line is going to vary wildly between individuals. Some will think it's not greedy enough, and some will think it's the equivalent of murder, and there's no legitimate way to decide where the exact appropriate middle ground is. That's something we all have to decide for ourselves, and it can't be forced upon others.
> there's no legitimate way to decide where the exact appropriate middle ground is. That's something we all have to decide for ourselves, and it can't be forced upon others.
This statement is false. Governments and judicial systems around the world routinely decide where the exact appropriate middle ground is, and make binding judgements forced upon people by threat of fines and imprisonment, ultimately acts of violence.
Some of it is even democratic (deciding together, not each for ourselves).
> because everything on the planet is designed to be addictive to some degree.
This statement is false. I can see in my immediate vicinity many human-made objects that were not designed with addiction in mind at all. For example, there is a rubber band on my desk. It effortlessly and immediately disproves your statement.
> And the OP's experience isn't a universal truth, no matter how much they want to insist it is.
Accounting for how many basic statements of yours I've now refuted, I'm inclined to think that my universal truths are better than yours.
> Should my grandmother not be allowed to have her fun because of someone else's addiction?
I isolated this argument because it's also used by the tobacco industry. Consider that correlation. Should we ban smoking because it's addictive and harmful? Yes, we should - and already have. In my country you can only buy the stuff by specifically asking for it - a good compromise in societal responsibility and personal freedom.
The OP is likely talking about what those games _exploit_: It's the few that will play the game to an extreme degree and likely pay tons of money to do so (often called "whales" but not all of them are).
The mechanism behind this is grounded in how our brain rewards us if we find seemingly rare patterns of success. And some percentage of people are susceptible to that kind of manipulation.
Whether you put the blame on the game or the players is another question, maybe a philosophical or ideological one. But to dismiss the mechanism as simply "enjoying something" implies that you don't recognize the problem as an addiction that may or may not be willingly exploited here.
For comparison: Walk into a casino or similar which has one-armed bandits. Tell me that the people hanging out there are truly enjoying it.