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

Epic Games to pay $245M for tricking users into making unwanted charges

ftc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 318 posts

Re: Epic Games to pay $245M for tricking users into making unwanted charges

#101

Post by lotsofpulp »

hunter2_ wrote: post #41
JohnFen wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you do a chargeback, you often get blacklisted on their service. Although, to be honest, if a problem has deteriorated to the point where I need to do a chargeback, I've already written off doing any further business with that company anyway.

For many, that depends entirely on the availability of alternatives. With duopolies like Uber/Lyft, you survive after one kill and then you're done. Amazon hardly has a direct competitor. For merchants with plenty of direct competitors, I agree with you.

Amazon would be the one with the most competitors. Many Amazon sellers have their own websites, not to mention Aliexpress, Walmart, Target, HomeDepot, Bestbuy, Monoprice, Staples, Costco, etc.

Re: Epic Games to pay $245M for tricking users into making unwanted charges

#102

Post by piperswe »

Kiro wrote: post #51
bluetidepro wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I take it you have never tried to use the support system of many of these services? Yeah, you may sometimes get a good rep that will actually help you and refund you. More often times than not you are forced to jump through massive hoops, auto replies, no help, etc. to the point that you have to do a chargeback. Also, chargebacks are not always a guarantee, VISA (or whoever) does their own investigation to make sure…

I refund routinely on Steam. The only times it doesn't work is if I've played more than 2 hours which seems fair. I don't see why I would be entitled to making a chargeback after I've played the game for that long. That would be like renting a movie, watch it and then make a chargeback.

Steam will even still give you refunds after 2 hours if you have a reason that convinces the customer service rep (e.g. performance or compatibility issues that you spent 3 hours running the game trying to fix)

Re: Epic Games to pay $245M for tricking users into making unwanted charges

#103

Post by afterburner »

luckylion wrote: post #79
afterburner wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just common in general. Nobody that you chargeback is going to want your business again. It's just that tech companies usually hold something you want (your account) effectively hostage, whereas a restaurant or whatever you can just stop going to. This does make it worse.

We could regulate that: if you want to close the account (and thus withdraw all the bought items), refund all the money they paid for it.

That won't work for something like Steam. It would mean you got unlimited games for free.

Re: Epic Games to pay $245M for tricking users into making unwanted charges

#104

Post by slowmovintarget »

indymike wrote: post #92
vuln wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You purchased _access_ to the media for as long as the company decides to host it. You don't physically own the media. Think of it as renting or a lease.

The button needs to say "rent" or "lease". A "buy" button should not result in a rental.

You're not doing that either. You're buying a revocable license to access. That's actually worse than renting or leasing.

In the case of Amazon Music, if you haven't fallen for the subscription nonsense, you actually are buying the MP3 files. You can download them and then it's on you to move them around as you need. Amazon will also "keep a copy in the cloud for you, and let you play it wherever." You lose that when you lose your account, but if you went to the trouble to download your MP3, that's yours.

Re: Epic Games to pay $245M for tricking users into making unwanted charges

#105

Post by pjmlp »

bluetidepro wrote: post #5

> Additionally, the order bars Epic from blocking consumers from accessing their accounts for disputing unauthorized charges. This could be bigger than people realize. This is very common in many tech companies like Uber/Doordash/Sony/etc. where if you do a chargeback, you often get blacklisted on their service. It would be amazing if this starts to end this practice, and you can actually have authority to get your m…

I wonder how they manage that on countries that have proper consumer rights government agencies.

Re: Epic Games to pay $245M for tricking users into making unwanted charges

#106

Post by ridgered4 »

BiteCode_dev wrote: post #20
degenerate wrote: post #9

> In Spring 2018, Epic executives and managers discussed adding a confirm purchase button to prevent accidental purchases. Though employees were concerned that “it is a bit of a dark UX pattern to not have confirmation on ‘destructive’ actions,” Epic feared that adding a confirmation button would add “friction,” “result in a decent number of people second guessing their purchase,” and reduce the number of “impulse pu…

And despite Epic having great games, this is why I have not installed it or paid for any of their product so far. Also why steam is still the leader despite having a terrible UI: they have been very good to their customers.

Is Steam UI terrible? It seems a little slower than I'd like, particularly initial load but otherwise it seems fine to me. And most software I use is so slow now it certainly doesn't stand out and has probably moved to the upper grade just by not getting worse over the years.

Re: Epic Games to pay $245M for tricking users into making unwanted charges

#107

Post by nitwit005 »

tagyro wrote: post #84

My comment is going to get downvoted (or worse, ignored), but here I go again: We, as software engineers (or working in the field), have the power to not implement these features when our employer asks us to do it. Everyday we read about organisations using dark patterns in their (software) products and then we come to HN to complain about it. How did these features get built? By whom? Yes, I realise not everyone has…

You seem to have started with the premise that getting management to behave ethically is hopeless, but that maybe engineers could refuse.

Management can always find someone willing to behave un-ethically if they look.

Regulation and criminal liability tends to be the only way to eliminate shady business practices.

Re: Epic Games to pay $245M for tricking users into making unwanted charges

#108

Post by [deleted] »

grog454 wrote: post #100
tagyro wrote: post #84

My comment is going to get downvoted (or worse, ignored), but here I go again: We, as software engineers (or working in the field), have the power to not implement these features when our employer asks us to do it. Everyday we read about organisations using dark patterns in their (software) products and then we come to HN to complain about it. How did these features get built? By whom? Yes, I realise not everyone has…

> software engineers (or working in the field), have the power to not implement these features when our employer asks us to do it. Realize that you're statment is a euphemism. What you really mean is we have the choice between implementing a dark pattern or finding another job and letting someone else implement it. Stated this way it's a lot easier to understand people's behavior.

[deleted]

Re: Epic Games to pay $245M for tricking users into making unwanted charges

#109

Post by p0pcult »

tagyro wrote: post #84

My comment is going to get downvoted (or worse, ignored), but here I go again: We, as software engineers (or working in the field), have the power to not implement these features when our employer asks us to do it. Everyday we read about organisations using dark patterns in their (software) products and then we come to HN to complain about it. How did these features get built? By whom? Yes, I realise not everyone has…

Cogs can't push back; experts can, and should.

Re: Epic Games to pay $245M for tricking users into making unwanted charges

#110

Post by luckylion »

afterburner wrote: post #103
luckylion wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We could regulate that: if you want to close the account (and thus withdraw all the bought items), refund all the money they paid for it.

That won't work for something like Steam. It would mean you got unlimited games for free.

That's why it's a great deterrent against punitive account closures. Right now, you pay 100% and get 0%. In that case, you'd get 100% of what you currently have on your PC, but pay 0%.

There's a compromise: they stop accepting any new business from you, but keep everything you've bought available: you pay 100%, you get 100%. It's what they should do, but they don't want to, because the current situation gives them a lot of power.

Hence a new regulation that tips the scales in the other direction to make Steam & co adopt a reasonable stance. The alternative would be to flat out force them to provide access indefinitely, but why not give them a chance to buy you out of your account if they really don't want to do business with you?

Post reply on HN