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

151–160 of 340 posts

Re: 'My son spent £3,160 in one game'

#151

Post by gruez »

wcoenen wrote: post #128
notus wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Debit card payments usually require card presence and PIN for each transaction

Presence and pin? How does that work online? Even if it's pin only, aren't you still screwed if you get phished?

Re: 'My son spent £3,160 in one game'

#152

Post by sidlls »

blackhaz wrote: post #107
throwaway13337 wrote: post #4

Mobile free to play games now make up the majority of money made in video games today. It's strange then that most of these games aren't that interesting. Who are the players of these that make up the new class of gamers? It would seem that the payers are the exploitable - those able to be swindled with casino mechanisms. As an ex- free-to-play game developer and one who believes regulation often does more harm to co…

How about a state regulation prohibiting stores to sell anything with real money procurement and trading mechanisms inside as games? Anything that allows in-app purchases or trade should be re-classified, a "trading platform," perhaps or, indeed, a casino? But then it would be up to society whether to allow their kids to play in a casino, or draw in a trading platform - where brushes have to be purchased. Squeeze tho…

Most of these apps exist because consumers expect them to be free and refuse to pay even a little bit up front. This "freemium casino" model of monetizing games and other apps arose out of the feedback loop that started with cheap consumer driven development.

The consumer is not always right....

Re: 'My son spent £3,160 in one game'

#153

Post by maze-le »

ohyes wrote: post #150
maze-le wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a very bad example. In Switzerland, if you are a severe addict, you can get heroine in pharmacies. The most important restriction is that if you buy the stuff, you are also bound to go to a therapeutic clinic and have staff assisting you whenever you want to withdraw. There are also clean injection rooms and other social mechanisms that help you get off the stuff. The result -- fewer heroine addicts, fewer dr…

I think that makes it an even better example. Giving away the addictive thing you still have to pay the societal cost of having people addicted to it. Switzerland handles this is a very admirable way and they have excellent outcomes, due to treating addiction as a disease rather than an individual moral failing. I don't see why substance abuse in particular should get a super-special treatment in our discourse on hum…

Good response! See my updated/edited other post. You are right essentially -- these games can and sometimes do work like drugs -- neurochemically. And like with drugs total prohibition will probably make things even worse.

Re: 'My son spent £3,160 in one game'

#154

Post by thom »

snailmailman wrote: post #142
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.

I disable in app purchases in their entirety on my own personal iOS devices. Mainly cause I’m paranoid that I’ll accidentally tap something and then accidentally approve it when trying to hit the home button. I’ve had apple devices for years , and I’ve gone in and manually enabled the ability to in-app purchase less than a half a dozen times. (This, and similar restrictions are buried in the screen time settings, in…

Ironically the majority of purchases I make on iOS are in Audible, for which Amazon refuses to pay App Store fees so I have to do it all in a browser. I guess that’s one case in which I wish it was simpler to spend my money/credits.

Re: 'My son spent £3,160 in one game'

#156

Post by AdamGibbins »

pintxo wrote: post #117
djhworld wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember hearing about one guy asking his bank to essentially block any gambling transaction as he was an addict https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45652429 Obviously there are ways to cirumvent that but it seemed to help him. I suspect it's harder to block these in app purchases at the bank level though, unless everything goes through Apple/Google pay and you block at that level

In Germany you can set yourself on the black list of your local casino or whatever. It‘s a legally required feature. https://www.verspiel-nicht-dein-leben.de/spielsucht/spielers...

The UK has similar now integrated into various modern fintech banks: https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/for-the-public/Safer-g...

Re: 'My son spent £3,160 in one game'

#157

Post by _ph_ »

I am shocked, that it is legal to offer simple games which allow in-app purchases of this size. If you compare these games to any AAA title which goes for like $70 or less, this isn't ethical in the first place.

With the money spent by a child, there should be no way to enforce the bill. Here in Germany, children cannot do business transactions which exceed the range of typical pocket money, so we are talking a few dollars here. Any business larger than that would require the parents to agree to be valid. Invalid transactions can be reversed.

And when pointing out towards parents negligence: keep in mind that there are no multiple accounts on iOS devices and there are good reasons to spend money to buy apps on a device. Of course, with enough understanding of the technology, parents would set it up so that the password is required for every purchase. The question is, is this a reasonable request for non-tech parents?

So if Apple wants to be in a position of morale, as they pitch themselves, they should put reasonable limits to in-app purchases, especially towards these games.

Re: 'My son spent £3,160 in one game'

#158

Post by gruez »

oaw-bct-ar-bamf wrote: post #102
tick_tock_tick wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Why would you ever use a credit card over a debit card??? With debit you spend the money you own. With credit you take debt. On every single payment. You are taking debt. Only at the end of the month you pay your debt. If you spent too much, (by accident) you now have to pay overdraft interest. With debit you spend the actual money you own. If a purchase (fraudulent or not) exceeds your current balance, the payment w…

>If a purchase (fraudulent or not) exceeds your current balance, the payment won’t process

>But that is a good thing.

In case of fraud that's a bad thing because your cash flow is now screwed until the dispute's resolved. What do you do if you have $1000 in the bank, you get a fraudulent charge for $600, and this months rent of $800 is coming up?

Re: 'My son spent £3,160 in one game'

#159

Post by sdwa »

subsaharancoder wrote: post #43

No child wakes up one morning and decides to do this, it's often a steady progression enabled by parents who have relegated their responsibilities to TV screens, video games and mobile phones. Casting blame on tech that they've let loose on their kids absolves the parents of any responsibility.

These games are literally designed to exploit vulnerable people, and they use every trick in the book to do it. Criticising parents for not being able to defend against the fruits of millions of hours of labour spent on marketing and r&d which exists solely to exploit is honestly shameful, as if parenting isn't difficult enough already. Do you really think gaming companies exploiting children by introducing them to gambling is the fault of the parents? What next, is the tobacco industry blameless too? Just a tiny bit of empathy on your part for people rather than capitalists would go a long way I think.
Post reply on HN