"I see these "social games" as largely parasitic and should be regulated in much the same way that gambling is for much the same reasons. "
Do you mean to say "addictive" or do you really mean parasitic?
Both "social games" and "gambling" are addictive. In both you can loose money.
But there are other things that are addictive that you can loose money in as well (stamp collecting, art collecting, buying and building model helicopters (great fun btw)).
Where do you draw the line with this?
In any case if you did mean parasitic could you explain further?
Psychologists have reasonably standardized measures of addiction. I wonder if there's a place for regulations that apply to "any product that turns out addictive for more than x% of buyers"; that would also solve the "designer drugs" problem (where a chemist can tweak a molecule to produce a slightly distinct one with the same effects faster than legislation can catch up)
But the truth is companies make many products to separate "addicts" from their money. Women's clothing, electronics, fancy cars, women's shoes. Or take QVC or HSN. You don't think that the nature of business in general (or food marketing I mean the list is endless) is engineered to separate people from their money? (Food obviously is really addicting no question about that).
All off these things share the same thing in common. They engineered and perfected to get you to spend money or something that gives you enjoyment. (It's not food though it's a certain type of food. Nobody is getting addicted to broccoli or boiled potatoes. Fried chicken or Lay's potato chips or things with MSG? Very possibly.
Obviously not every example I've given has the same degree of addiction.
I hope you realize that there is quite a difference between simply wanting or liking something a whole lot, and being addicted to something.
KFC does not seek to prey on the (hypothetical) few who are so addicted to fried chicken that they lose their families, sell their valuables, lose their careers, and sell their bodies to get another fix. They "prey" on people who like their product.
Real addiction (not your perverted sense of "addiction" being merely liking something intensely) is a hypothetical side effect of the businesses you give as examples. For the gambling industry and companies like Zynga, it is the business model.
It's a crowded space with a lot of big players, with possibly more money than Zynga. They just don't have plush offices in San Francisco and don't like to make it into the papers much.
Pushing into actual gambling is going to be a tough fight.
They don't need to out-compete the other players in internet gambling to make the "real money". They merely need to join them. I would be very surprised if they were actually unable to accomplish that, given that they already have the public's trust and attention. If they can't leverage that to at least some success, I'm not sure they could do anything.
Do you mean to say "addictive" or do you really mean parasitic?
Both "social games" and "gambling" are addictive. In both you can loose money.
But there are other things that are addictive that you can loose money in as well (stamp collecting, art collecting, buying and building model helicopters (great fun btw)).
Where do you draw the line with this?
In any case if you did mean parasitic could you explain further?