To some degree, every game has addictive mechanics. This type of mobile game clearly crosses an ethical line... but where's the line?
I played it briefly and was lucky enough to stumble across a clan of people who were spending money left and right. I never did so it took me a while to figure out each "gift" I was getting was tied to someone spending up to $100. At one point I received twenty rapid fire gifts in a row as someone spent $2,000 and then lamented "my wife is going to kill me" in chat.
Slot machines bore me so once it was clear any advancement would require months of waiting or spending money I quit rather than be a drag on the clan of people who were happily spending $250-$500 month on the game.
Blizzard and Wizards of the Sword coast, despite getting into similar mechanics as F2P games, are still companies that largely extract value from customers as a byproduct of providing them with fun experiences. Companies like that in the article are different, usually extracting value by producing thinly-veiled gambling experiences that prey on the fallacies in our internal reward systems.
Both kinds of companies have access to the same tools and tricks to manipulate our reward systems. But how we play depends on the intention.
Almost none of them would be able to play the game at their level while also paying for their working tools. But, somehow, they are shown as examples to players without these connections...
If I can give an advice to anyone willing to play somewhat competitive magic without mortgaging their house, play block pauper magic.
At least for the ycombinator crowd, the lesson learned should be how to design such a game assuming your morals allow it. I briefly considered writing a parody that openly abused you for spending money in game. BROADCAST: "Hey everyone, this idiot just spent $10 on some bits on a server in California!" But yeah I would feel bad even making money from that game, and it seemed like a lot of work for something that would probably net $35.
I haven't played M:TG in over decade, but at least then it was standard 'ante up' a card before each game that you would lose if you lost.
Just googled it and the last card to even have an ante-impacting ability was printed in 1996. Seems it stuck around as an optional rule but wasn't common in my experience, probably because tournaments always skipped it.
A full edition set costing in the thousands, and there being 3-4 sets per year, the price to compete is fairly high.