Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

'My son spent £3,160 in one game'

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 340 posts

Re: 'My son spent £3,160 in one game'

#121

Post by thom »

Waterluvian wrote: post #111
thom wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to explicitly approve every install and purchase on my kids' iPod Touches. I don't know if they would need a fingerprint on my phone to be able to spend money there, but I assume all the tools are in place to control this sort of behaviour. Apple really need to make it clearer and easier for people.

They could make that the default behavior. But I suspect someone whose mandate is moneymaking would veto it.

Has anyone done a breakdown of Apple's profit from hardware vs (in-)app purchases? Feels like this is a situation where they're not selling the devices as loss leaders, and could easily improve people's experiences and perceptions by cracking down a bit, without it really costing them much. Feels along the same lines as the privacy push - they _could_ make lots of money selling your data, but they're selling the peace of mind as a feature.

Re: 'My son spent £3,160 in one game'

#122

Post by [deleted] »

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #91
HenryBemis wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use a "7 accounts setup" for my finances. One of my accounts is labelled "Internet" and has no more than £50-£100 at any given moment. It is the card used for Paypal, Amazon, Spotify, etc. If that card gets compromised I won't lose more than that, and my bank will most likely return the funds (yes even if it's just a Debit Card). If the account runs low then Spotify won't get paid in time and I won't cry about it :…

Why would you ever use a debit card over a credit card?

[deleted]

Re: 'My son spent £3,160 in one game'

#123

Post by droithomme »

You have to be 21 to play the slots in Vegas. It's recognized as not a good idea to allow casinos and gaming rooms to extend access to addictive gambling games to children.

Gambling is also banned for everyone in many states, not just children, as the damage to society of allowing enterprises to prey on addictive personality types and create misery is recognized.

These laws need to be applied to online games as well.

Re: 'My son spent £3,160 in one game'

#124

Post by ska »

vorpalhex wrote: post #6

But how do you tell the difference between an adult and a kid with their parents password and bank card? If you trust your kid with your bank account and get burned.. isn't that kind of on you?

The problem I think is the all-or-nothing aspect. So you trade off convenience for safety and it mostly works out but the worst case is worse than many people think it could be.

Why, for example, can you as a parent not set an (even global) spending limit on in app purchases?

Why can't you disable in-app purchases per app?

I think the answer to those sorts of questions is pretty easy to come up with. Lot's of things could technically be done that would make it easier for parents to manage this stuff, but it's not going to happen without a push from somewhere because every barrier you put in place will reduce revenue somewhere.

Re: 'My son spent £3,160 in one game'

#125

Post by _fzslm »

ryandrake wrote: post #98
cwkoss wrote: post #39

Every game should have to display a "Maximum cost of online play" on the cover with ESRB rating and on the app store listing. If not limited just show ($10,000+). Would give parents a rough idea of how exploitive a game's online currency system is.

Wouldn’t they all say “$10,000+” in that case? Are there really any games out there that stop you before you make a purchase saying “You already spent $100 this month. Please don’t give us any more of your money!”

Maybe not the app devs, but it would be nice if Apple or Google had a counter of how much money you've spent in IAPS on an app on the payment screen.

Re: 'My son spent £3,160 in one game'

#126

Post by ska »

nine_k wrote: post #67
fortran77 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of this is "bad parenting", but games that say they're OK for 3 year olds (like the mini-golf game described in the article) shouldn't make it easy for a 3 year old to spend money. I have less sympathy for the high-school and college kids who did this.

A three-years-old should not have an ability to spend money using a card, period. Much like a three-years-old should not have an ability to light matches, or push a screwdriver into a power socket, or operate a chainsaw.

They aren't using a card though, at least not directly. They are playing a game.

It sounds like many games are set up to 1) encourage you to enter account information at some point and 2) not make it obvious when you are going to spend more "real" money.

Obviously these situations could be avoided in various ways, but I think it's being pretty hard on parents of young kids to blame them entirely for "falling for" scenarios that are pretty dodgy. Especially if you are a) a technologist of some sort and b) don't have kids, I would really think carefully before deciding the parents are 100% at fault.

Re: 'My son spent £3,160 in one game'

#127

Post by ohyes »

nabergh wrote: post #105
maze-le wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I almost fell into such a trap before. I knew about the mechanics, but I was willing to give the developers the benefit of a doubt. And so I started playing, and after a while started to acquire shortcuts with money. Once, twice and at the verge of the third time, I realized what I was doing and stopped immediately. The money you use is never much, but that is just part of the design to make you throw out even more -…

> I would definitely be hooked on that particular game and still throwing money out for -- not much but a faster reward-cycle. Do you think that's an inherently bad thing? Maybe it was for you at the time but I feel like the ability to reliably turn money into entertainment (in this case "a faster reward-cycle") is a great thing to have available to people who already have their basic needs met.

In that case, what’s wrong with heroine? You’re just sticking entertainment into your arm. (This is intentionally hyperbolic).

This issue isn’t really the money -> gratification conversion, it’s the addictive nature of the process. If I’ve done everything I can to addict you to my product (to remove your ability to decide for yourself)... I’m in a morally bad area.

I’m of the opinion that some of these addictive response patterns should be banned from games flat-out, whether or not there’s a direct connection to someone’s line of credit.

If heroine were free, it would still be a problem for those addicted to it, if not for very long. (Although no one would have a financial incentive to get other people hooked, so it’s an interesting thought experiment as to whether use would increase or decrease).

Re: 'My son spent £3,160 in one game'

#128

Post by wcoenen »

notus wrote: post #115
iMerNibor wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a european my question is exactly the opposite, why would you ever use a credit card if you can just pay directly with the money you have? The concept just seems to bizzare as someone who has grown up with their country specific bank cards - getting a credit card or even a visa/mastercard debit card is something fairly unusual. I do realize you american people have to build a credit score and there's cashback sche…

Well one reason people use credit cards a lot in the US is that it is much easier to dispute a payment charged to a credit card then it is a debit card. Additionally a charge on a credit card is not money you currently have it is more potential money, whereas a charge on a debit card is tied directly to your bank account and can take a while to be returned in the case of fraud. At one point you used to be basically S…

The concern over fraud goes the other way in Europe. We don't like the "pull" model and worry about our card number being used without our authorization. Debit card payments usually require card presence and PIN for each transaction, making stuff like that impossible.

Re: 'My son spent £3,160 in one game'

#129

Post by EGreg »

schnevets wrote: post #62
djhworld wrote: post #12

The amount of crap in the app stores that encourage this sort of behaviour is truly, truly shocking. The gaming community often lambast companies like EA etc for loot boxes ("surprise mechanics"), which is definitely a problem that needs to go away, but from this article I suspect there's a lot of examples of absolute bottom of the barrel shovelware on the app stores that's raking it in from accidental purchases from…

I was just having an internal debate about the merits of a spending cap. I'm not usually one for such blunt regulation, but there really is no way to justify spending +$100 on mobile games daily unless an individual is addicted, deceived, or in some other way psychologically manipulated. Although society would probably benefit from similar caps in casinos, and I doubt that regulation will ever arrive be legislated.

Why spending cap be government enforced?

Why not just have a second signer to increase a cap?

Re: 'My son spent £3,160 in one game'

#130

Post by xg15 »

nabergh wrote: post #105
maze-le wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I almost fell into such a trap before. I knew about the mechanics, but I was willing to give the developers the benefit of a doubt. And so I started playing, and after a while started to acquire shortcuts with money. Once, twice and at the verge of the third time, I realized what I was doing and stopped immediately. The money you use is never much, but that is just part of the design to make you throw out even more -…

> I would definitely be hooked on that particular game and still throwing money out for -- not much but a faster reward-cycle. Do you think that's an inherently bad thing? Maybe it was for you at the time but I feel like the ability to reliably turn money into entertainment (in this case "a faster reward-cycle") is a great thing to have available to people who already have their basic needs met.

Yes. First, it turns the game from an good or service I buy to enjoy into a glorified supermarket where I'm supposed to buy even more goods. This frequently ruins both immersion and gameplay.

Secondly, the developers now have incentives to make you spend as much as possible, which is why you'll frequently see psychological tricks to move you in that direction.

Even if the developers were completely earnest, the rewards cycle will cause craving for mire rewards and will easily keep one glued to the game longer than intended.

If I need to exert willpower to use a service "responsibly" while the service actually makes its money from people using it irresponsibly, the service probably shouldn't be used in the first place.

Post reply on HN