263 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

Wulfram wrote...

If something sparks regulation of microtransactions, I expect it'll be Candy Crush or similar and not a Bioware game.

One would think, but I'm not sure this is true. I doubt a law firm would see a company like Zynga, for example, and see enough to sink their teeth into to make a federal case about it, honestly. Sure, they make a ton of money, but their overall solvency is pretty flimsy. 

Contrast that with a company like EA (which Bioware is obviously a part of)... publicly traded, established deacdes ago, steady revenue streams, large amounts of both liquid and illiquid assets, high name recognition... THAT'S a company worth targetting. McDonald's was the first company to have an obese person prosecute for causing them harm to their health... not White Castle. You go for the deep pockets on your first real leap at an industry's throat, not the little guys. 

[Dean_the_Young]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Lotteries are insanely regulated. Laws that are binders thick just begin to scratch the surface of everything they have to do.

And you know what isn't grounds to sue a lottery?

Buying tickets and losing.


Lotteries are regulated in who they can service, where they can set up, and in quite a few other ways... but in the way that's relevant to this discussion, of your repeated example of someone spending all their money? That's not one of them.

Video game companies have to do nothing for their own virtual lotteries. Therefore, they are at an extreme risk to be sued - simply because zero regulations exist for them to follow (and therefore, hide behind).

Actually, a number of regulations exist. Software copyright and related legislation, privacy acts, non-discrimination clauses...

EDIT: And selling virtual goods isn't the problem.

Since we're talking about virtual goods, they're entirely relevant.

Advertising or promoting said virtual goods (such as in-game purchases) in a way that causes someone to act in a fashion that results in harm (even self-inflicted financial harm) becomes the realm of class action suits and miles of regulation. GAMBLING on said goods is even more of a moving target - because you're not buying a virtual good anymore... you are buying the CHANCE to win a virtual good. That's gambling. 

Right. And losing a gamble isn't grounds to sue.

Especially when the lottery in question never offers you a chance to win back your money either. In gambling for money, you could conceivably make back your money. In buying item packs, you have no expectation of getting any money back ever. Unless you intend to sell the account, in which case you made a failed investment venture. Which is also not grounds to sue.


Of course, for the ME3 MP packs, they also give you parameters of what you can get. When a pack says you'll get a rare, and you get a rare, they fulfilled their offered product even if it wasn't the rare you wanted.

[Fast Jimmy]

I'll ignore pretty much every point you made, Dean, simpy because this:

Right. And losing a gamble isn't grounds to sue.

Losing a gamble isn't grounds to sue because there is legal precedent and regulations to make it so. There ARE no gambling for virtual goods legal precedent set, or laws created. It is a totally, as I said earlier, a Wild West industry.

Citing software copyright laws when talking about microtransactions is like citing regulations about selling fruit when talking about tobacco. The concept of vice and assuming consumer control is not even a serious discussion when talking about fruit... it is, however, insanely relevant when discussing tobacco. Coercing someone to buy a quick bonus or boost in a game is working off of a very emotional, non-logical form of thinking. Coercing them to buy software like Microsoft Office is much harder proposition to do, since they have no emotional or time-sensitive needs driving that decision.

To say "well, no laws exist now, so companies should exploit that while this is still the case" may be true... but one could easily also argue that if companies behave irresponsibly now and abuse the system simply because there are no laws, it sets legislators up to impose said regulations, when they might not have so before. 

You can't say what suits won't be won, or settled, or thrown out by the Supreme Court with any level of true confidence because, while there are allegories in the world that share traits that make this quite legal, there are similarities to other industries, such as the vice industries I've mentioned, that make them rife for high levels of regulation. So no one knows... which makes it an inherently risky revenue stream to pursue, long term.



Also, manufacturing laws in California have no jurisdiction what you sell, but don't manufacture there. Microtransactions, and the problems they reflect, are 100% a selling/distribution issue. So a law affecting microtransaction in one state/country/continent would either require compliance if the company wanted to distribute/sell there or it would result in fines or abstinence.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 29 novembre 2013 - 04:52 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

And millions of people got fat from fast food before someone filed a lawsuit and won a multi-million dolar suit and now fast food restaurants across the globe are including calorie counts right next to their menu choices.

I haven't seen any fast food restaurants do that where there isn't a legal requirement that they do so.

These types of suits are not a matter of "if" but when if industries don't attempt some form of either disclaimer (which throughly informs the consumer) or limitations (such as how much money can be spent in a certain time period, or one that takes into account some form of means test).

They'll do that when PR demands it.  It's cheaper for them to respond to the scandal than to sacrifice revenue to get out in front of it.

What you're suggesting doesn't benefit today's shoreholders.

[Fast Jimmy]

I haven't seen any fast food restaurants do that where there isn't a legal requirement that they do so.

That's kind of my point - going about a practice that assumes consumer responsibility winds up in having to deal with added legislation down the line. There's no reason the video game industry needs to start going down those roads for revenue streams when they have perfectly viable ones already in place.

They'll do that when PR demands it. It's cheaper for them to respond to the scandal than to sacrifice revenue to get out in front of it.

What you're suggesting doesn't benefit today's shoreholders.

Neither did the video game industry implementing the ESRB rating system to self-regulate how content is rated for adults to review the content they are buying for themselves or their children. Yet it saved the industry from having to be beholden to 25 different countries legislation about how content can be rated and distributed (for the most part, there are definitely still countries where game distrobution due to ratings is a problem), which makes it a more stable and predictable industry overall.

I'm in no way appealing to anyone's moral compass with this argument. It is a poor business decision from a lot of different angles - consumer perception, possible legal implications, possible negative industry associations (I'm sure no one would like being called the casino of the software distribution industry) and other developers having negative views, that you are being greedy and short-sighted.

Is it as bad as smuggling cocaine? Of course not. Is it as bad as knowingly guaranteeing loans for houses that people have no business having? No, but it's starting to get into the same type of neighborhood, where logic like "the consumer should know better, so companies obviously have no risk" which has been shown to not at all be the case. Is it as innocent as selling a product on a shelf with no further method or intent of charging more than the sticker price? Absolutely not - comparing the two practicies is ignoring some very large differences in how these transactions are put together and presented.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 29 novembre 2013 - 05:52 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I'll ignore pretty much every point you made, Dean, simpy because this:

A shame, since I had other points.

Right. And losing a gamble isn't grounds to sue.

Losing a gamble isn't grounds to sue because there is legal precedent and regulations to make it so. There ARE no gambling for virtual goods legal precedent set, or laws created. It is a totally, as I said earlier, a Wild West industry.

Except we do have laws. We have laws on the nature and treatment of digital property, digital transactions, and digital gambling, and almost a decade of litigation and legislation related to the industry. Heck, microtransactions far predate the digital age.

This is less Wild West and more 'I don't believe the government has the right to tax me' because you're not familiar with the law.

Citing software copyright laws when talking about microtransactions is like citing regulations about selling fruit when talking about tobacco. The concept of vice and assuming consumer control is not even a serious discussion when talking about fruit... it is, however, insanely relevant when discussing tobacco. Coercing someone to buy a quick bonus or boost in a game is working off of a very emotional, non-logical form of thinking. Coercing them to buy software like Microsoft Office is much harder proposition to do, since they have no emotional or time-sensitive needs driving that decision.

Since you're using microtransactions to refer to the product and the process, citing software copyright laws (which are heavily related to the product) is completely relevant. Digital copyrights are a cornerstone of digital property law. Digital property rights is what DLC is about.

If you're trying to just talk about microtransactions as a financing process, then that's established in mundane financing and transaction laws.


You'll also be happy to learn that luxury goods and premium perks aren't considered a coercion for those who don't buy them. Coercion would apply if the consumer was being threatened or discriminated against on various grounds if they didn't buy the product... but not getting a product you didn't pay for isn't considered coercion, no matter how much you want it. There are centuries of American capitalism on this point, by the way.

To say "well, no laws exist now, so companies should exploit that while this is still the case" may be true... but one could easily also argue that if companies behave irresponsibly now and abuse the system simply because there are no laws, it sets legislators up to impose said regulations, when they might not have so before.

Except the one saying laws don't exist now is... you. Which is silly, since laws on digital property rights, online gambling and its variations, and financial transaction responsibilities have been on the books for some time now.

You're also using regulation as a catch-all boogeyman, instead of an applicable practice or policy that might not harm or would even help the industry players. Let's say the ultimate overreaction occurs, and Congress bans the sale of all downloadable content. Free stuff is alright... but no selling fake virtual digits.

Video game companies would love that sort of law, because it means all games have to go back to disc. A digital-only game, after all, is downloadable content. Steam would be crushed overnight, gaming stores would see a return of customers, and developers could easily destroy the used-game market (and enable them to jack up prices) by giving 'free' DLC... to anyone who could show proof of purchase of the original game. Console companies would love this regulation so hard, it would be funny.


On a different level, say Congress does a limited ban of specific parts and practices- like grab bags, like the ME3 MP packs. The companies that did them stop selling random grab bags and sell other, static packets, and pocket the money they already made by selling random packs. The companies that didn't sell random packs because they 'self-regulated' also have to also restrict themselves to fixed packets... and they don't get to count any money from such practices, since they didn't partake. The regulation is a minimal cost, since the only way to incure it (by peopleselling grab-bags) was to profit from it. Companies that didn't, lost money by not taking their chance.


So you'll need to be a tad more specific about what actual regulations would entail before you use it as the boogeyman. Taxes? Already exist.

You can't say what suits won't be won, or settled, or thrown out by the Supreme Court with any level of true confidence because, while there are allegories in the world that share traits that make this quite legal, there are similarities to other industries, such as the vice industries I've mentioned, that make them rife for high levels of regulation. So no one knows... which makes it an inherently risky revenue stream to pursue, long term.

A couple of weaknesses here.

First, you started with an unfalsifiable premise. That's a logical fallacy, and saying 'the future is uncertain' is actually a poor argument for giving up opportunity in the immediate future. After all, the future is uncertain about whether good behavior will allow opportunity later.

Second, we do have grounds on what sort of suits will be won, settled, or thrown out with confidence. That grounds is 'precedence', and not only does the online video game industry have about a decade of it, but the legal concepts related to microtransactions (digital property, consumer responsibility, corporate liability for consumer consumption of a non-addictive product) have been hashed out over decades or even centuries. Corporations, and their lawyers, have a pretty good idea of what can go ahead or not- which is why they make you sign those big nondisclaimer agreements when you start a game or try to buy things online.

Third, your premise rests on principles with no logical endstate- selfdestructive and irresponsible consumers, lawsuits, bad publicity, and subsequent legislation. There is no reasonable way any corporation can avoid this, and it makes a very poor argument for any sort of commerce other than abstaining entirely. Why focus on DLC, and ignore a college student who failed college and life because he obsessed over buying the hardcopies of the ME trilogy for every gaming system? Should Bioware not sell N7 hoodies because someone with an obsession buys 3000 hoodies they can't afford? Aren't companies at risk of frivilous lawsuits if they go to a gamer convention and offer swag to the first 100 arrivals, prompting some fan to get in a car wreck while doing midnight driving through a thunderstorm to get there?

As the same pattern of bad customers, lawsuits, and legislation can be held over the heads of any policy, even reasonable ones, the argument doesn't hold much weight as there's nothing a company can do to avoid it no matter how well they behave themselves.

Fourth, you're using regulation as a boogeyman rather than how, specifically, they will be bad for business. Already hit that one.

Fifth, you've already cast the sale of digital property as a non-viable long-term process. In which case, short term advantage is all that matters. If no one takes advantage of the opportunity, it's never regulated but no one profits from it. If everyone does, it gets regulated but people got some profit from it all the same. And if some people do and some people don't, it's still going to get regulated but the short-term profits are just from those that did.

Also, manufacturing laws in California have no jurisdiction what you sell, but don't manufacture there. Microtransactions, and the problems they reflect, are 100% a selling/distribution issue. So a law affecting microtransaction in one state/country/continent would either require compliance if the company wanted to distribute/sell there or it would result in fines or abstinence.

Only in the state in question, and only as far as it doesn't interfere with the Commerce Clause. California's been hit for that a few times in the past, when it tried to pass from 'tax' to 'regulate'. Changes in California also haven't exactly dominated the rest of the US, let alone the industries.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 29 novembre 2013 - 06:12 .

[Fast Jimmy]

You'll also be happy to learn that luxury goods and premium perks aren't considered a coercion for those who don't buy them. Coercion would apply if the consumer was being threatened or discriminated against on various grounds if they didn't buy the product... but not getting a product you didn't pay for isn't considered coercion, no matter how much you want it. There are centuries of American capitalism on this point, by the way.

This point doesn't even make sense. Cigarettes are a luxury good. Is Camel Joe "coercion" by your definition? Did a cartoon camel discriminate against any particular group? No, but Camel cigarettes got dinged bad in the 90's for using him because it was deemed trying to sell cigarettes to minors, which resulted in tbe entire industry being regulated on how advertising was allowed to work.

I don't see how anyone can fail to see how a microtransaction system in a video game, which gives false senses of value, immediacy and need, would be an industry that is practically begging to be regulated... HEAVILY.

You're also using regulation as a catch-all boogeyman, instead of an applicable practice or policy that might not harm or would even help the industry players. Let's say the ultimate overreaction occurs, and Congress bans the sale of all downloadable content. Free stuff is alright... but no selling fake virtual digits. 

Such a law would be nigh impossible to draft, let alone implement. You'd have to define exactly what "fake" and "real" mean in the virtual world. If this is what you think I'm advocating, I question whether or not you are following my line of logic.

I can sell you a virtual rocket launcher. I can package it in the base game and include it in the base game's sticker price. I can sell it as a DLC item pack, payable upon download. I can sell it to you as an instant microtransaction, where it becomes available to you immediately in-game.

I can charge you in game currency. I can chage you real life money. I can charge you in-game currency that can only be bougjt with real life money. I can sell you items only purchaseable with in game currency. I can sell you other items that are only purchaseable with real life money. I can sell you items that can be purchased with both.

I can sell you the good for a day. I can sell it to you for a week. I can sell it to your for a lifetime. I can sell it to you and have it be lost forever if your console ever breaks. I can sell it to you and have it be available for you to access forever, no matter where you are playing the game from.

I can let you buy as many items as you want. I can limit you to only being able to purchase one in day. Or one week. Or one year. I can let you spend as much real life money as you want at once. I can limit how much you can spend in a day. In a week. In a year.

Nowhere, in any legal precedent, does any company have to give me any of these arrvices to goods nor regulation on how money can be spent on said goods. I could be told today that every good I bought would be honored for all time and be told the next that every good I own is now gone and unrecoverable without repurchasing.

There is no regulation. No industry standard. No consumer advocacy. No RULES. THAT'S what I mean.

If a law was passed tomorrow, the things you are mentioning would be part of the courtroom battles and diatribes. But that's NOT what I'm saying. I'm saying today, a company can do whatever it pleases with microtransactions that are ancillary to a base product like a game. With this freedom, as companies begin to dip their toe into questionable tactics, such as gambling or pay to win models, etc., they are practically begging for a legislative or regulatory fight to break out.

If a consumer is making a choice based on an emotionally fueled mindset at the behest of a company who has no guidelines about the nature of the transaction, let alone the avenues of recourse a consumer can follow, then that consumer can take the company to court over nearly anything. They may not win, but winning a court case is not the goal of a company. Preventing them from going to court at all is in most cases - which is why the vast majority of civil suits are settled out of court.

Regulation ISN'T a boogeyman... but it is the result of what happens when the free market can't hold itself responsible. And nearly every industry on the planet that is now mired in laws, regulation and red tape started out with saying "no one is forcing you to buy our products."

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 29 novembre 2013 - 06:37 .

[Il Divo]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I don't see how anyone can fail to see how a microtransaction system in a video game, which gives false senses of value, immediacy and need, would be an industry that is practically begging to be regulated... HEAVILY.

You're not being clear again. How is this strictly a microtransaction issue? With any entertainment product, it can be argued that you are getting a false sense of value. Any product can be made prone to abuse. See World of Warcraft, as a fun example.

Hence also the film example. Much like how you don't know exactly what you're getting with each ME3 pack (although Dean correctly points out you are always guaranteed certain rare items), you don't actually know what experience you're getting every instance you enter a movie theater. Since a consumer doesn't have a perfect idea of what they're getting with any purchase, is every industry/product open for regulation on that front?

The only logical position based on your post is for companies to continue as they always have, because what will and won't be regulated is entirely random and without a consistent pattern. Collectible card games have gotten by without any sort of trouble, or at least have decided that their overall gains surpass the loss due to bad publicity. The solution isn't a blanket "avoid micro transactions" because a company might face regulation further on. The solution could either be, use micro transactions until regulations hit, or to keep following the microtransaction model even once we reach that point. Lottery tickets haven't been discontinued on that basis, however. To be honest, this is sounding like a justification you've created for your own personal dislike of the practice.

Modifié par Il Divo, 29 novembre 2013 - 06:53 .

[David7204]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I don't see how anyone can fail to see how a microtransaction system in a video game, which gives false senses of value, immediacy and need, would be an industry that is practically begging to be regulated... HEAVILY.

Are you out of your mind?

The free market is handling itself just fine.

Are you somehow under the impression that real world products don't give false sense of value, immediacy, and need?

Modifié par David7204, 29 novembre 2013 - 06:54 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Hence also the film example. Much like how you don't know exactly what you're getting with each ME3 pack (although Dean correctly points out you are always guaranteed certain rare items), you don't actually know what experience you're getting every instance you enter a movie theater. Since a consumer doesn't have a perfect idea of what they're getting with any purchase, is every industry/product open for regulation on that front? 

A movie is not an immediate, impulse purchase. You can't walk into a movie theater and watch a movie with the click of a button.

Besides, there is an upper limit to how many movies you can purchase and realistically consume (to officially decide if you like or don't like them) at one time. A microtransaction, especially a gambling one where you pay and immediately find out if your investment was worthwhile or not, can allow dozens of such transactions in a matter of minutes. If I fire up ME3 MP the first time and REALLY want to play a Volus Engineer, I could pay a hundred dollars, theoretically, and not get said character.

But even putting the RNG aspect aside, there is no method to prevent someone from spending hundreds, if not thousands, if not TENS OF THOUSANDS, of dollars on microtransactions. Just like there is nothing stopping someone from going into a casino and losing the same amout of money. Yet the casino industry is heavily regulated, both in terms of where it canoperate and who it can allow to use its facilities. 

Does a video game company suffer the same penalties if an 11 year old spends $50 in an afternoon as they would if that same kid tried to gamble that at a casino? Or tried to buy cigarettes? Heck, the 11 year old couldn't even buy a pack of condoms in many places without a legal guardian givjg the okay.

Yet with video games, this is entirely possible. One creit card hookup to your Steam or XBL account and a minor can spend every dime in their parent's savings without even so much as a flag being raised.

And before anyone says "that's the parent's job" I'd quickly point to the countless instances where video games have been blamed and the industry suffered due to parents not doing their jobs.


Also, collectible card games are small time. Church raffles also are a form of gbling - the government and legal bodies just knows its better to let small-operation instances like that have free reign instead of trying to become mired in the inner workings of such a minute amount of real impact.

One of the largest companies in a billion dollar industry? Now you are looking at a target worth going after if they prove unreliable enough to regulate themselves.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 29 novembre 2013 - 07:09 .

[Maria Caliban]

I'll also point out that microtransactions need not be for grabbag or random packs. In the Old Republic, you can buy specific items off the Cartel Market. An ashfall tauntaun, for example, is currently $30. World of Warcraft just released a new color changing mount.

The best analogy to MP3's random packs is probably Magic: The Gathering booster pack. Something which has never been classified as gambling despite Magic being around for over a decade. And this is a game that clearly targets children as its main demographic.

It's possible that 'someone, someday will try to sue' but given current laws, that suit won't go anywhere or do anything.

That said, there is some stuff happening in the UK, but it doesn't have much to do with gambling as it does children being able to quickly spend hundreds and thousands without their parents' knowledge or permission.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 29 novembre 2013 - 07:14 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I don't see how anyone can fail to see how a microtransaction system in a video game, which gives false senses of value, immediacy and need, would be an industry that is practically begging to be regulated... HEAVILY.

That's what all luxury goods do.  Games are a luxury good.

They way you sell things is by convincing people that they need them.  It doesn't matter whether they actually need them.

Regulation ISN'T a boogeyman... but it is the result of what happens when the free market can't hold itself responsible. And nearly every industry on the planet that is now mired in laws, regulation and red tape started out with saying "no one is forcing you to buy our products."

Which, if true, meant there was no need for that regulation.

[Cainhurst Crow]

So what exactly are you calling for jimmy? Mandatory DNA blood test before you're allowed to purchase using an electronic device to confirm their identity and age? That every user be forced to create a voice based or facial recognition based password since button based is too easy for children to get into?

And yes, it is the parents jobs. It has always been the parents jobs. And no matter how much they ****, whine, moan, or blame someone or something else, it was and always will be their job to keep their kids out of trouble and make sure they are raised correctly.

You're basically saying because children don't know any better, and parents are ****s who have no responsibility, that a corporation needs to have the burden of responsibility in raising a child correctly. What ever happened to watching your goddamn kids? What ever happened to parents being responsible and taking care of their little children?

When did we need large, faceless, global spanning companies to do the job of child rearing to the point they can't enact any sort of economic model to help get more revenue without everyone demanding they be responsible for micromanaging their lives on top of that.

Additionally, why are parents letting their children have access to their credit cards? Phone purchases, game purchases, can all be controlled on the device to keep them from accessing those cards, if I'm not mistaken. The safeguards are already something that exist on their devices, so them not using it means the companies need to forcibly enact them onto everyone? Why not just have the parents turn the ****ing safeguards that already exist on?

EDIT: That last part I may be mistaken. I do still believe that parents shouldn't be giving their kids access to their games where you can microtransaction anyway, just as parents shouldn't be giving theri children credit cards in the first place. If they get a phone, don't put any credit card or billing options on the kids phone, keep it with the parents and have them need to access it to pay for anything. If it's the home console, you can probably disable the option for the play station store or xbox to let them have any points by not putting a credit card in the file. And if the kid is smart enough and willing enough to steal a credit card to use, that kid probably was undersupervised by the parents to allow them to pull off something like that in the first place.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 29 novembre 2013 - 07:38 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Besides, there is an upper limit to how many movies you can purchase and realistically consume (to officially decide if you like or don't like them) at one time. A microtransaction, especially a gambling one where you pay and immediately find out if your investment was worthwhile or not, can allow dozens of such transactions in a matter of minutes. If I fire up ME3 MP the first time and REALLY want to play a Volus Engineer, I could pay a hundred dollars, theoretically, and not get said character.

But even putting the RNG aspect aside, there is no method to prevent someone from spending hundreds, if not thousands, if not TENS OF THOUSANDS, of dollars on microtransactions. Just like there is nothing stopping someone from going into a casino and losing the same amout of money. Yet the casino industry is heavily regulated, both in terms of where it canoperate and who it can allow to use its facilities.

Where I live, the casinos are run by the government.  They place no limits on how much you can spend there.

If, however, you decide that you shouldn't be allowed to gamble anymore, you can ask to be added to a list of forbidden customers.  And then you're not allowed to gamble, right?

Wrong.  Then you're just not allowed to win.  You can sit in the casino and lose all you want, but if you win enough that you need to fill out some paperwork (most places that's anything above $1000), they'll see that you're on the exclusion list and they'll refuse to give you your winnings.

The government also runs an online casino, and there they do limit how much you're allowed to spend.  The cap is $10,000/day.  Really.

My point here is that when the regulators are the ones running the casino, they can do what they like.  And society doesn't collapse.

Does a company suffer the same penalties if an 11 year old spends $50 in an afternoon as they would if that same kid tried to gamble that at a casino? Or tried to buy cigarettes? Heck, the 11 year old couldn't even buy a pack of condoms in many places without a legal guardian givjg the okay.

Okay, I have to ask - where are condoms a restricted good?

Yet with video games, this is entirely possible. One creit card hookup to your Steam or XBL account and a minor can spend every dime in their parent's savings without even so much as a flag being raised.

If you give a monkey a gun, it's not the monkey's fault when he starts shooting people.  It's your fault for giving him a gun.

Why would parents ever give their child unlimited spending power like that?  That would be crazy.  Those people deserve to be bankrupt.

And before anyone says "that's the parent's job" I'd quickly point to the countless instances where video games have been blamed and the industry suffered due to parents not doing their jobs.

But if we roll over and expect that sort of infantilization of society, we're to blame for it.  No.  I will not limit my own freedom to do things just because some people can't be trusted with that kind of responsibility.

[AlanC9]

Jeez.... I get the feeling something bad must have happened in Fast Jimmy's family. I've never seen paternalism get this far out of control without some kind of deep psychological scar behind it.

Modifié par AlanC9, 29 novembre 2013 - 07:23 .

[Jorji Costava]

AlanC9 wrote...

Jeez.... I get the feeling something bad must have happened in Fast Jimmy's family. I've never seen paternalism get this far out of control without some kind of deep psychological scar behind it.

In my experience, playing armchair psychologist on an internet forum rarely ends well.

[Maria Caliban]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Why would parents ever give their child unlimited spending power like that?  That would be crazy.  Those people deserve to be bankrupt.

Parents give money to their children so their children can buy things. For an online store, a parent can't just give their child $20. They need a credit or debit card, which often allows unfettered access to the money in the account or the amount of money lent.

I'd say it's not so much the parents being irresponsible as financial technology not keeping abreast with modern spending.

The ideal solution would be for banks to provide parents limited spending debit cards for their children. That way a parent could say 'this card only has access to $40 per month.'

[Cainhurst Crow]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Why would parents ever give their child unlimited spending power like that?  That would be crazy.  Those people deserve to be bankrupt.

Parents give money to their children so their children can buy things. For an online store, a parent can't just give their child $20. They need a credit or debit card, which often allows unfettered access to the money in the account or the amount of money lent.

I'd say it's not so much the parents being irresponsible as financial technology not keeping abreast with modern spending.

The ideal solution would be for banks to provide parents limited spending debit cards for their children. That way a parent could say 'this card only has access to $40 per month.'

There are options to not have the credit card information saved you know? Not everyone requires you put a credit card on file forever that can accesss at any time by any one.

[Br3admax]

There are also spending limit options and subaccounts. Calm down.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Parents give money to their children so their children can buy things. For an online store, a parent can't just give their child $20. They need a credit or debit card, which often allows unfettered access to the money in the account or the amount of money lent.

I'd say it's not so much the parents being irresponsible as financial technology not keeping abreast with modern spending.

The ideal solution would be for banks to provide parents limited spending debit cards for their children. That way a parent could say 'this card only has access to $40 per month.'

Prepaid cards offer exactly this ability.

[Il Divo]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Why would parents ever give their child unlimited spending power like that?  That would be crazy.  Those people deserve to be bankrupt.

Parents give money to their children so their children can buy things. For an online store, a parent can't just give their child $20. They need a credit or debit card, which often allows unfettered access to the money in the account or the amount of money lent.

I'd say it's not so much the parents being irresponsible as financial technology not keeping abreast with modern spending.

The ideal solution would be for banks to provide parents limited spending debit cards for their children. That way a parent could say 'this card only has access to $40 per month.'

While I'm all for giving parents greater control in their ability to distribute funds to their kids, I think the whole point here is that, in absence of such a solution, who's at fault? If the choice is either the parent must constantly monitor their kids purchasing activities or let them have free reign and risk terrible purchasing decisions, it will always have to be the former.

[Maria Caliban]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

There are options to not have the credit card information saved you know? Not everyone requires you put a credit card on file forever that can accesss at any time by any one.

And there are lots of applications that automatically store the information.

Lets be clear, parents have never previously been obliged to watch their children's spending like a hawk. That's a burden that modern technology has placed on them.

When I was young, my mother would give me money each week to buy lunch at school. Sometimes I did so and other times I made my own lunch and bought junk food with the cash. My mother also gave me a weekly allowance for doing chores and let me buy whatever I wanted with it. Because I was using physical money, the amount given was inherently limited.

For online purchases, that limit is far in excess to the amount parents would want children to have.

Again, I don't think the problem is the applications themselves or the parents, I think the problem is that parents lack a basic tool for controlling their children's spending.

Il Divo wrote...

While I'm all for giving parents greater control in their ability to distribute funds to their kids, I think the whole point here is that, in absence of such a solution, who's at fault? If the choice is either the parent must constantly monitor their kids purchasing activities or let them have free reign and risk terrible purchasing decisions, it will always have to be the former.

In the absence of such a solution, no one is at fault. Parents can't be expected to constantly monitor their children. We can have guidelines as to the amount of monitoring a child ought to have; we can have reasonable expectations, but 'constant vigilance' isn't reasonable.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 29 novembre 2013 - 08:04 .

[Il Divo]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

A movie is not an immediate, impulse purchase. You can't walk into a movie theater and watch a movie with the click of a button.

What exactly is the difference between an immediate impulse decision vs. a more delayed decision? Sure, if I decide to spend a $1,000 in a clothing store, I might have a 30 day money back guarantee, but what if the time expires before I regret my choice? Since you're so adamant about playing parent to consumers everywhere, it shouldn't matter whether it's an immediate impulse buy, your ultimate concern should be protecting everyone from themselves.

Besides, there is an upper limit to how many movies you can purchase and realistically consume (to officially decide if you like or don't like them) at one time. A microtransaction, especially a gambling one where you pay and immediately find out if your investment was worthwhile or not, can allow dozens of such transactions in a matter of minutes. If I fire up ME3 MP the first time and REALLY want to play a Volus Engineer, I could pay a hundred dollars, theoretically, and not get said character.

Attempting to apply a logical/healthy mindset to an inherently unhealthy obsession is a very bad idea, period. I'll be open in saying that I don't think anyone who does make such idiotic impulse decisions deserves a chance for his money back, period.

But even putting the RNG aspect aside, there is no method to prevent someone from spending hundreds, if not thousands, if not TENS OF THOUSANDS, of dollars on microtransactions. Just like there is nothing stopping someone from going into a casino and losing the same amout of money. Yet the casino industry is heavily regulated, both in terms of where it canoperate and who it can allow to use its facilities. 

I don't know much about the Casino business. Is there anything actually stopping someone from literally on the spot putting their entire life savings on the line? Regulation doesn't mean much if you're not expressing in exactly what way it's being regulated.

It also does not negate the possibility that even with intense regulation, micro transactions of this sort can still be extremely profitable, in both the short and long term.

Yet with video games, this is entirely possible. One creit card hookup to your Steam or XBL account and a minor can spend every dime in their parent's savings without even so much as a flag being raised.

And before anyone says "that's the parent's job" I'd quickly point to the countless instances where video games have been blamed and the industry suffered due to parents not doing their jobs.

And I don't see that as a model to follow. Aside from video games being given a false level of attention compared to violent films or tv shows for example, what this gets us is restrictions on what type of video games we should be allowed to make, because we're afraid that a child will be exposed to something which a parent should be doing in the first place. "That's the parent's job" is a defense, because that is in fact your role. To act as a guardian to your child and all his/her decision-making.  

Also, collectible card games are small time. Church raffles also are a form of gbling - the government and legal bodies just knows its better to let small-operation instances like that have free reign instead of trying to become mired in the inner workings of such a minute amount of real impact.

Again, given that you you're a bit paranoid, I don't think any of these small time companies can afford the blowback, if anyone does decide to take up such a law suit. At least in EA's case, they can probably keep going, even if micro transactions turned south.

Modifié par Il Divo, 29 novembre 2013 - 08:07 .