I’m pretty ambivalent either way. I like watching Poker tournaments, but I don’t like playing poker, yet poker themes in games don’t really bother me (lots of games have a “full house” or “flush” concept). So it being based on poker neither improved nor hurt my opinion of it, it’s just a design decision to reuse poker concepts.
I wonder if Balatro would’ve had a similar impact if it wasn’t based on poker. A lot of people care about poker, and using poker terminology has a certain flair to it. I imagine people were attracted to the “forbidden fruit” of a poker-themed game, helping with marketing.
But then the PEGI rating surely also caused issues. So I don’t know whether it was a net positive or negative. Either way, it’s a fun game that has very little to do with poker other than theming.
Video poker is a casino game based on five-card draw poker. It is played on a computerized console similar in size to a slot machine.
Video poker is a single-player game. The problem with video poker is that it’s a pretty simple game. It’s been solved. You can go dig up the numbers for when to do what to play optimally, given the information you have. It’s repetitive. There’s just…not a lot going on with it as a game, even if it kinda looks like traditional poker.
Traditional poker is a multiplayer game. Different players are playing against each other. That introduces bluffing, and that makes for a more-complicated game.
That being said, even traditional poker is mostly solved. It’s just complicated-enough enough to do that most people aren’t going to play optimally.
Von Neumann solved poker – including bluffing – for optimal play back when he developed game theory (and in fact, did his work with the initial intent of solving poker).
For Von Neumann, the inspiration for game theory was poker, a game he played occasionally and not terribly well. Von Neumann realized that poker was not guided by probability theory alone, as an unfortunate player who would use only probability theory would find out. Von Neumann wanted to formalize the idea of “bluffing,” a strategy that is meant to deceive the other players and hide information from them.
In his 1928 article, “Theory of Parlor Games,” Von Neumann first approached the discussion of game theory, and proved the famous Minimax theorem. From the outset, Von Neumann knew that game theory would prove invaluable to economists. He teamed up with Oskar Morgenstern, an Austrian economist at Princeton, to develop his theory.
Their book, Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, revolutionized the field of economics. Although the work itself was intended solely for economists, its applications to psychology, sociology, politics, warfare, recreational games, and many other fields soon became apparent.
To the extent that poker remains unsolved, it’s trying to determine whether someone is playing non-optimally or has other weaknesses and trying to take advantage of that (e.g. exploiting information leaks via tells, something like that).
It’s only solved mathematically, but that’s not the interesting part of poker to me, the interesting part is the psychology of it. You communicate through your bets, posture and posture at the table, as well as when you show vs hide folded hands. The actual statistics are only interesting when trying to decide whether someone is bluffing or playing “optimally.” And I don’t think you can solve “bluffing” either, because just knowing the theory behind bluffing changes how and when you bluff.
So yeah, exploiting tells and other non-book actions makes poker interesting to watch at the higher levels.
None of that relates to Balatro at all. There are no stakes, no bluffing, etc. How you play a given hand is a lot less interesting than how you construct your deck. It doesn’t play like poker at all, it plays like Slay the Spire w/ a poker theme.
IMO the gambling themes are the selling point of balatro. Hell ignoring the poker half, the dev’s themselves basically said the whole scoring theme etc… was made to be slot machine style gameplay.
To be honest I think that’s a very large percentage of it’s popularity, is just that viewpoint making it accessible to, non gamers and non roguelike fans. I don’t think it would be a top seller if done as a “slay the spire”, or done with a theme that doesn’t have appeal to non-gamers.
Also I would say, balatro is like 2 or 3 very minor changes away from easily being a “suck crazy amount of money from gambling addicts” game. IE if someone took balatro, released it on mobile platforms as f2p. Only differences being to slightly increase the speed of the anti score. and say start each game with 2 optional joker packs (for $1 chose between one of 3 random negative jokers), for $2 chose one of 5 negative jokers). (obviously replacing the dollar amounts with purchasable in game currency). You’d easily get into top mobile apps and make a killing.
don’t think it would be a top seller if done as a “slay the spire”, or done with a theme that doesn’t have appeal to non-gamers.
Maybe that’s why I enjoyed it, but wasn’t blown away by it.
I’m not interested in gambling, the closest I get is studying systems for beating the house. So when I see Balatro, I don’t see anything related to gambling, because there are no stakes and only strategies for beating the various bosses, and the poker theme is just flavor.
But yeah, I could totally see it doing well as F2P game, I just would be completely uninterested. That’s why I was so surprised by the original PEGI rating, because it’s so out of line with my experience playing it.
Maybe that’s why I enjoyed it, but wasn’t blown away by it.
I think you and I are probably similar in that. I’d say I really enjoyed about 20 hours of it, then played an additional 30 hours where I was hoping things would start getting fun again, but it never came.
Ignoring the video Slots scoring, and poker themes. I would still say luck is so much stronger in balatro then on any roguelike I’ve played. To the extent that the best “strategy”, is basically to start going all in on a certain playstyle, that requires 3+ things to be viable, and then die or reset if the necessary components don’t show up before the ante outpaces you.
In short, psudo-gambling mechanics are IMO largely what hooks people in the game, which I also have to say the PEGI group may actually be if anything slightly underestimating the risk. IE the game is 100% not gambling, but it draws on everything in the brain that gambling does. “Maybe next game will give me cooler jokers that will get me further”. I mean yes all games have some extent of these, there’s a reason why there’s such a large overlap. As well as why basically all mobile app developers, and a good portion of big corporate monstrocities turned their games to build on gambling mechanics.
Balatro IMO leans into all of the hook on gambling tropes, just avoiding the last step of exploiting it to get users to continue to pay them money. It’s actually a pretty reasonable question to ask… does it put kids/teenagers into a mindset that will make them more vulnerable to a less ethical game developer that takes that last step.
“Maybe next game will give me cooler jokers that will get me further”. I mean yes all games have some extent of these, there’s a reason why there’s such a large overlap. As well as why basically all mobile app developers, and a good portion of big corporate monstrocities turned their games to build on gambling mechanics.
The psychological term at the core of the mechanic is a variable reward schedule:
In behavioral psychology, reinforcement refers to consequences that increase the likelihood of an organism’s future behavior, typically in the presence of a particular antecedent stimulus
Variable ratio schedule (VR) – reinforced on average every nth response, but not always on the nth response.[14]: 88
Variable ratio: rapid, steady rate of responding; most resistant to extinction.
Applications
Reinforcement and punishment are ubiquitous in human social interactions, and a great many applications of operant principles have been suggested and implemented. Following are a few examples.
Addiction and dependence
Positive and negative reinforcement play central roles in the development and maintenance of addiction and drug dependence. An addictive drug is intrinsically rewarding; that is, it functions as a primary positive reinforcer of drug use. The brain’s reward system assigns it incentive salience (i.e., it is “wanted” or “desired”),[31][32][33] so as an addiction develops, deprivation of the drug leads to craving. In addition, stimuli associated with drug use – e.g., the sight of a syringe, and the location of use – become associated with the intense reinforcement induced by the drug.[31][32][33] These previously neutral stimuli acquire several properties: their appearance can induce craving, and they can become conditioned positive reinforcers of continued use.
The thing is that many games use an aspect of random reward, which leverages the conditioning effect of a variable ratio schedule to get people to want to play. Rogue had random drops in 1980, for something early that I can name off-the-cuff. Like, having random rewards are all over video games, were around long before F2P or pay-to-win lootboxes. Like, banning games for leveraging that mechanic would ban a huge range of video games, card games, board games, etc.
I think that the reason that people worry about it with gambling is that a runaway impact on someone directly results in draining money from them, especially since someone can hope to “make money back”. “This will help encourage someone to buy an expansion or sequel” is acceptable, but “money is spent on a per-roll basis in the hopes of getting money” is not.
Balatro definitely makes use of random rewards…but many, many games do that.
Balatro looks a little like a gambling game. You can go and play video poker with actual money, and the first round or so of Balatro is simply video poker, with virtual money, before Balatro’s mechanics enter. But…I’m not sure that that makes Balatro particularly problematic. Maybe, I guess, someone could play Balatro, then think that “video poker is cool” and then go play video poker for money. I guess maybe that’s what the PEGI people were upset about.
I don’t know how much any special Balatro convertability into an actual gambling game is a factor. I mean, I am pretty confident that you could take virtually any video game and turn it into a gambling game. Hell, a number of free-to-play games spanning many genres do have some degree of winning at least in-game stuff when you insert money.
I’m pretty ambivalent either way. I like watching Poker tournaments, but I don’t like playing poker, yet poker themes in games don’t really bother me (lots of games have a “full house” or “flush” concept). So it being based on poker neither improved nor hurt my opinion of it, it’s just a design decision to reuse poker concepts.
I wonder if Balatro would’ve had a similar impact if it wasn’t based on poker. A lot of people care about poker, and using poker terminology has a certain flair to it. I imagine people were attracted to the “forbidden fruit” of a poker-themed game, helping with marketing.
But then the PEGI rating surely also caused issues. So I don’t know whether it was a net positive or negative. Either way, it’s a fun game that has very little to do with poker other than theming.
It’s not so much “poker” as a broad theme that I have an issue with, but specifically video poker:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_poker
Video poker is a single-player game. The problem with video poker is that it’s a pretty simple game. It’s been solved. You can go dig up the numbers for when to do what to play optimally, given the information you have. It’s repetitive. There’s just…not a lot going on with it as a game, even if it kinda looks like traditional poker.
Traditional poker is a multiplayer game. Different players are playing against each other. That introduces bluffing, and that makes for a more-complicated game.
That being said, even traditional poker is mostly solved. It’s just complicated-enough enough to do that most people aren’t going to play optimally.
Von Neumann solved poker – including bluffing – for optimal play back when he developed game theory (and in fact, did his work with the initial intent of solving poker).
https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/courses/soco/projects/1998-99/game-theory/neumann.html
To the extent that poker remains unsolved, it’s trying to determine whether someone is playing non-optimally or has other weaknesses and trying to take advantage of that (e.g. exploiting information leaks via tells, something like that).
It’s only solved mathematically, but that’s not the interesting part of poker to me, the interesting part is the psychology of it. You communicate through your bets, posture and posture at the table, as well as when you show vs hide folded hands. The actual statistics are only interesting when trying to decide whether someone is bluffing or playing “optimally.” And I don’t think you can solve “bluffing” either, because just knowing the theory behind bluffing changes how and when you bluff.
So yeah, exploiting tells and other non-book actions makes poker interesting to watch at the higher levels.
None of that relates to Balatro at all. There are no stakes, no bluffing, etc. How you play a given hand is a lot less interesting than how you construct your deck. It doesn’t play like poker at all, it plays like Slay the Spire w/ a poker theme.
IMO the gambling themes are the selling point of balatro. Hell ignoring the poker half, the dev’s themselves basically said the whole scoring theme etc… was made to be slot machine style gameplay.
To be honest I think that’s a very large percentage of it’s popularity, is just that viewpoint making it accessible to, non gamers and non roguelike fans. I don’t think it would be a top seller if done as a “slay the spire”, or done with a theme that doesn’t have appeal to non-gamers.
Also I would say, balatro is like 2 or 3 very minor changes away from easily being a “suck crazy amount of money from gambling addicts” game. IE if someone took balatro, released it on mobile platforms as f2p. Only differences being to slightly increase the speed of the anti score. and say start each game with 2 optional joker packs (for $1 chose between one of 3 random negative jokers), for $2 chose one of 5 negative jokers). (obviously replacing the dollar amounts with purchasable in game currency). You’d easily get into top mobile apps and make a killing.
Maybe that’s why I enjoyed it, but wasn’t blown away by it.
I’m not interested in gambling, the closest I get is studying systems for beating the house. So when I see Balatro, I don’t see anything related to gambling, because there are no stakes and only strategies for beating the various bosses, and the poker theme is just flavor.
But yeah, I could totally see it doing well as F2P game, I just would be completely uninterested. That’s why I was so surprised by the original PEGI rating, because it’s so out of line with my experience playing it.
I think you and I are probably similar in that. I’d say I really enjoyed about 20 hours of it, then played an additional 30 hours where I was hoping things would start getting fun again, but it never came.
Ignoring the video Slots scoring, and poker themes. I would still say luck is so much stronger in balatro then on any roguelike I’ve played. To the extent that the best “strategy”, is basically to start going all in on a certain playstyle, that requires 3+ things to be viable, and then die or reset if the necessary components don’t show up before the ante outpaces you.
In short, psudo-gambling mechanics are IMO largely what hooks people in the game, which I also have to say the PEGI group may actually be if anything slightly underestimating the risk. IE the game is 100% not gambling, but it draws on everything in the brain that gambling does. “Maybe next game will give me cooler jokers that will get me further”. I mean yes all games have some extent of these, there’s a reason why there’s such a large overlap. As well as why basically all mobile app developers, and a good portion of big corporate monstrocities turned their games to build on gambling mechanics.
Balatro IMO leans into all of the hook on gambling tropes, just avoiding the last step of exploiting it to get users to continue to pay them money. It’s actually a pretty reasonable question to ask… does it put kids/teenagers into a mindset that will make them more vulnerable to a less ethical game developer that takes that last step.
The psychological term at the core of the mechanic is a variable reward schedule:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement#Intermittent_reinforcement_schedules
The thing is that many games use an aspect of random reward, which leverages the conditioning effect of a variable ratio schedule to get people to want to play. Rogue had random drops in 1980, for something early that I can name off-the-cuff. Like, having random rewards are all over video games, were around long before F2P or pay-to-win lootboxes. Like, banning games for leveraging that mechanic would ban a huge range of video games, card games, board games, etc.
I think that the reason that people worry about it with gambling is that a runaway impact on someone directly results in draining money from them, especially since someone can hope to “make money back”. “This will help encourage someone to buy an expansion or sequel” is acceptable, but “money is spent on a per-roll basis in the hopes of getting money” is not.
Balatro definitely makes use of random rewards…but many, many games do that.
Balatro looks a little like a gambling game. You can go and play video poker with actual money, and the first round or so of Balatro is simply video poker, with virtual money, before Balatro’s mechanics enter. But…I’m not sure that that makes Balatro particularly problematic. Maybe, I guess, someone could play Balatro, then think that “video poker is cool” and then go play video poker for money. I guess maybe that’s what the PEGI people were upset about.
I don’t know how much any special Balatro convertability into an actual gambling game is a factor. I mean, I am pretty confident that you could take virtually any video game and turn it into a gambling game. Hell, a number of free-to-play games spanning many genres do have some degree of winning at least in-game stuff when you insert money.
Eh, I really don’t agree that thinking about future rounds is even remotely like gambling.
It’s not the random chance that makes it gambling, it’s the wagering and possibility of a payoff.
No one would mistake vanilla solitaire for gambling even though it’s based on random factors and minimal strategy.
I think what you’re referring to as gambling tropes are more engagement tactics, which are often used by gambling apps but are fundamentally distinct.