The truth is, it's a related example, but what you mention has the hallmarks of planned obsolescence. Everything you buy now has an expiration date embedded in it; things aren't manufactured like they used to be...
So, in that sense, your point makes sense. Original games don't even bother to innovate or be different anymore; they're practically a template, and if they even have one.
But that's the nature of the gambling or where it tends to be heading. Fortunately, not everyone has that goal, or at least they try to maintain certain traditional approaches.
I don't see the connection with planned obsolescence.
Gambling innovation was something that crypto gambling was known for. Low house edge, no KYC and provable fairness. Nowadays it's all the same with traditional casinos mostly. Opacity over odds calculation on most games, no provable fairness, spam ads about high house edge games etc.
Gambling isn't compared to a 2023 iPhone becoming slower. You can still play the old games that are having provable algorithms behind them. But the issue here is something else. The overall experience becomes worse because now the main theme of most casinos is promoting the shittiest practices of gambling and you have to go out of your way to find a couple good games even.
Well, first of all, how wonderful it is to debate and compare ideas; that’s the essence of why we should always have our own opinions and support them with arguments.
I’m presenting this idea as a side note to what you mentioned, since that’s genuinely how I feel, and I say this from my own experience within the context of betting and from my professional experience in the world of technology.
That said, here are my points of view. But first, let’s focus on what each concept actually is.
Planned obsolescence isn’t a recent term, and that’s important to note. It took years to become implemented in practice, but in general, it’s based on designing something to last less than it technically could. The goal is to push the consumer into replacing it prematurely. But keep in mind, getting to this point took decades. Longevity used to be prioritized; the essence of durability was part of the feeling we had with appliances, light bulbs, etc.
Now, the term you mention is recent, so, many people might even be reading it for the first time in your Topic: “enshittification.” Ok, essentially, it describes another dynamic: digital platforms or services that start out excellent at attracting users, then gradually deteriorate in order to benefit advertisers, shareholders, or simply their executives, sacrificing the user experience in the process.
Then:
Many users experience it every moment, and you know it's there but you have no idea that there's an epitome to name it, but it doesn't matter, the important thing is to know that you suffer from it.
Why am I mentioning it? Because I think the two are related, but not necessarily intertwined, as a popular phrase in my language says (and I suppose something similar exists in English too: "Juntos pero no revueltos"). Anyway, my idea is to draw parallels in the following:
Both prioritize sustained economic profit, both deliberately degrade the user experience, and both exploit consumer dependency.
And perhaps this is where your insightful point, which I mentioned earlier, comes into play, since planned obsolescence usually targets hardware or physical lifespan.
Now, let’s talk about the new “enshittification.” It’s simple: it attacks the digital ecosystem and the user experience.
That means social networks filled with ads, worse algorithms, useful features locked behind subscriptions, marketplaces that prioritize advertising over quality, and platforms that start out “open” only to later become closed and hostile. (other examples OP)
The interesting thing is that today, both concepts can merge. The easiest example that comes to mind is the smartphone:
On one hand, smartphones are physically becoming more difficult to repair (planned obsolescence), while on the other, the software is increasingly filled with services, ads, restrictions, and limited updates (enshittification).
So, that’s how I see it, which is why I mention it. In any case, as I said in my other post, it’s a reality. Now, if you want to give it the technical label of “enshittification” and interpret it your own way, that’s fine, but in reality, both concepts are connected through the aspects I mentioned.
