Are candy/confectionery manufacturers supposed to feel guilty that they make stuff kids like and nag their parents to spend money on their products? Supercell has carefully designed the game to encourage impulsive purchases but that doesn't mean that the players are not deriving any pleasure out of it. And teens maxing out credit cards is something that can be easily stopped.
I belive there is a real moral hazard to selling addicting/impulsive products, especially to children. After all this is part of the reason why zynga has such a bad reputation.
I don't know, are tobacco manufacturers supposed to feel guilty for selling addictive cigarettes that kill?
Is anything that makes money automatically good? After all, somebody is willing to pay for it?
As for chocolate, we still have adverts praising health effects of some chocolate for children (in Germany). I think eventually they might get sued, as happened to the cigarette industry.
You know, Luxemburgerli are ridiculously expensive. But they're mostly marketed to adults, and as a luxury food that you get to indulge on, and don't even buy in huge amounts.
This is different from marketing something to children, or making something addictive, or doing both at the same time. And, this shows that you can make something with a big profit margin without relegating to abusing your customers.
Of course, games may be different. At some point everyone and their dog will own Minecraft, and not everyone can live off donations like Dwarf Fortress. I don't think that justifies going into dependency-forming mechanisms, though. If that means you can't ethically fund the rest of your life out of a single game (nor does it automatically make you ultra-wealthy), well, welcome to the movie business. Or book business.
