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

321–330 of 340 posts

Re: 'My son spent £3,160 in one game'

#321

Post by ajscanlan »

LanceH wrote: post #35
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 the app stores classifying them? I've tried looking for games I could buy outright. Try finding a game without ads or in app purchases. It is extremely difficult to search by those criteria.

Not sure about iOS but on the Play Store you can look in the "Premium" section in Games.

Not all are IAP free, but it seems most of them are.

Re: 'My son spent £3,160 in one game'

#322

Post by ajross »

kaokien wrote: post #188
ajross wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "I cannot put even a minimal effort in keeping an eye on my children, so I will blame someone else for it and make it their responsibility." For centuries, it's been trivially possible for parents to manage their children's access to funds. Nineteenth century homesteaders could send their kids off to market with appropriate funds to buy what they needed. Now all of a sudden this doesn't work and kids by default hav…

That is a horrible example, homesteaders give their children an appropriate amount to purchase goods, a better example of parents who fall victim to their children purchasing in app purchase would be a homesteader that gave their child access to their family fortune while believing a child could make a correct financial decision.

You whooshed on the point. The obvious way to get some lard from the market is to hand Eustice 40 cents and send her off. The obvious way to let Ernesto play a game is to hand him your phone (no, it's not the only way, but be real: it's the obvious first choice for nontechnical users).

What's happened is that the default mode for usage has changed from "Here's a dollar for candy" to "Here's access to the family fortune". And that's bad. And it's not the fault of Ernesto's parents, it's the fault of the technology vendors.

Re: 'My son spent £3,160 in one game'

#323

Post by Ygg2 »

hardwaregeek wrote: post #167

I strongly believe that video games today are comparable to alcohol in the 60's. Y'know, how people in the 60's would say "Oh Johnny just likes his liquor" when Johnny's drinking at 9AM, drunk at 10 and hungover by 2. Right now we have people who are facing serious problems with video games, and yet we brush them off casually and callously. I can't count the number of stories on reddit about playing video games all d…

I disagree. This isn't about all games. This is about some AAA games literally bolting a gambling mechanics onto a crap game, to cause gambling addiction.

Re: 'My son spent £3,160 in one game'

#324

Post by FraKtus »

My daughter is playing several of those games such as Roblox on her iPad; she can't install new applications of buy credits without me entering the password in the apple store.

The cool part of doing that is that I ask her to convince me why she needs those credits, what she will use them for, doing that I can understand what she does in the game and see if it fit her. Another side of those games is that they have a social side and you can interact with other kids, so it's important to know that and make sure your kid understands that not everybody can be nice on a social network.

In the end, I don't understand a parent that gives that power to their children...

Re: 'My son spent £3,160 in one game'

#325

Post by kuzimoto »

Ygg2 wrote: post #323
hardwaregeek wrote: post #167

I strongly believe that video games today are comparable to alcohol in the 60's. Y'know, how people in the 60's would say "Oh Johnny just likes his liquor" when Johnny's drinking at 9AM, drunk at 10 and hungover by 2. Right now we have people who are facing serious problems with video games, and yet we brush them off casually and callously. I can't count the number of stories on reddit about playing video games all d…

I disagree. This isn't about all games. This is about some AAA games literally bolting a gambling mechanics onto a crap game, to cause gambling addiction.

I think any game is addictive. Having "gambling mechanics" certainly doesn't make it any better, but that's like saying alcohol causes a drinking problem. Yet many people that drink occasionally are not alcoholics.

Re: 'My son spent £3,160 in one game'

#326

Post by Ygg2 »

kuzimoto wrote: post #325
Ygg2 wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. This isn't about all games. This is about some AAA games literally bolting a gambling mechanics onto a crap game, to cause gambling addiction.

I think any game is addictive. Having "gambling mechanics" certainly doesn't make it any better, but that's like saying alcohol causes a drinking problem. Yet many people that drink occasionally are not alcoholics.

So is food, sex, etc.

But having a Skinner box and other psychological tricks that empty your wallet is a serious problem. An addicting game that doesn't extract money wastes your time, granted, but an addicting game that extracts money can leave you homeless, without a job and on the street.

Equating the two is like saying - all drugs are the same when one drug can leave you with a slight migraine while other kills if you take a mg more than the recommended dose.

Re: 'My son spent £3,160 in one game'

#327

Post by nkrisc »

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.

I think this is an excellent idea that informs consumers and doesn't stifle developers. It would allow you distinguish between a one-time purchase game (maybe even with some DLC) from an endless money pit.

I see Game A and notice the maximum cost of play is, let's imagine, $30. I can then tap and see the base game costs $10 and there's some additional content I can buy. If I bought everything possible I'm out $30.

Next I see Game B. I can immediately tell that they'd willing take my entire life savings for some stupid candy-themed puzzle game and pass on it.

Re: 'My son spent £3,160 in one game'

#328

Post by tomjen3 »

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...

Denmark has a similar system, except it is for all online casinos. Heaven help you if you’re addicted to the local jackpot bar.

Re: 'My son spent £3,160 in one game'

#329

Post by kuzimoto »

Ygg2 wrote: post #326
kuzimoto wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think any game is addictive. Having "gambling mechanics" certainly doesn't make it any better, but that's like saying alcohol causes a drinking problem. Yet many people that drink occasionally are not alcoholics.

So is food, sex, etc. But having a Skinner box and other psychological tricks that empty your wallet is a serious problem. An addicting game that doesn't extract money wastes your time, granted, but an addicting game that extracts money can leave you homeless, without a job and on the street. Equating the two is like saying - all drugs are the same when one drug can leave you with a slight migraine while other kills…

If I understand correctly, you're saying that AAA game companies are at fault for producing video games that influence people through addictive psychological tricks to the point of ruining their lives.

I completely agree that some methods uses by game companies are dubious at best, and can ruin lives. However, I don't think that game companies are to blame.

> Equating the two is like saying - all drugs are the same when one drug can leave you with a slight migraine while other kills if you take a mg more than the recommended dose.

All addictions are not equally destructive. But, all addictions can be destructive depending on the individual.

Many other companies are using similar tactics in other areas than video games. People obsessively use Facebook/Instagram to the point of depression and suicide, are they to blame? Are McDonald's commercials to blame for obesity and heart disease?

Where does it end? Are we saying that the average person has no control, and can't think for themselves? I think it's easy to play the victim card, but hard to actually deal with the core issues that lead you there.

Re: 'My son spent £3,160 in one game'

#330

Post by vorpalhex »

mac_was wrote: post #133
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?

Did you read the article at all? A game says it is for 3 years old and above and it uses trickery to manipulate a 5 year old into thinking that real money is just game coins. How are you supposed to control that?

Did your 5 year old manage to open a credit card in their name or crack your password? Are they lifting your fingerprint with super glue and tape?
Post reply on HN