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

141–150 of 318 posts

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

#141

Post by JohnFen »

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…

> Yes, I realise not everyone has the privilege to say "NO", but at least some of us can and should push back.

I agree wholeheartedly. I would (and have) quit jobs where I was required to do things I considered unethical. Having to do that can suck and be a financial blow, but I think being able to keep my soul is worth it.

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

#142

Post by alden5 »

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.

Here's a software engineer at twitter who was asked to implement granular per user location tracking and the feature got scrapped because the entire team just refused to implement it https://mobile.twitter.com/stevekrenzel/status/1589700721121...

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

#144

Post by JohnFen »

rootusrootus wrote: post #94
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…

I think a lot of us do push back on the product owners and designers when something seems obviously bad. But I don't think it's good advice to encourage people to unilaterally declare themselves the gatekeeper just because they write the code.

> encourage people to unilaterally declare themselves the gatekeeper just because they write the code.

That's not the call to action. The call to action is to refuse to participate in unethical behavior.

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

#145

Post by hunter2_ »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #101
hunter2_ wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm referring to competitors of the overall Amazon experience, not really the individual products, in which the main value proposition for me is the extremely fast shipping. Those other stores typically don't offer it at a reasonable price, because they don't have warehouses a stone's throw from most customers.

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

#146

Post by jamesy0ung »

paulmd wrote: post #50
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.

That may be true, but the EU can simply outlaw those types of contractual arrangements going forward, and require that prior purchases be either defaulted into the new purchase arrangement or refunded. Welcome to governments that are actually responsive to protecting their citizens. It doesn't have to be the way it is in the US with corporations holding all the cards, that's just regulatory capture in action. That's…

Consumer protection is similar in Australia, we have the ACL and it's great. I got my 4 year old, out of warranty macbook pro replaced for free because the screen backlight was having problems and the keyboard was not working properly.

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

#147

Post by bellgrove »

hinkley wrote: post #67
acomjean wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an adult who’s partner plays Fortnite with her cousins and occasionally gets dragged in, I haven’t seen this. I’ve spent maybe 25, and it seemed pretty obvious what was going on. Maybe I just haven’t found the dark pattern path. It should be clear what’s going on before charging. I don’t love the “v bucks” vs real dollars they charge for things. though I get that the reward for those who grind isn’t actual dollars…

I play Civ VI on my tablet to wind down, and I’m not happy about owning the whole thing on Steam and only half on iOS. They need a license transference process. If memory serves Klei might have a solution for this but I haven’t bought anything on steam in some time so I may be thinking of some other game.

It would be nice to get a discount on already owned games when purchasing on another platform, but I disagree that it should just be free (if I understood what you mean about license transference). Porting a game to another platform is non-trivial - I think a fair compromise would be a discount. Otherwise the cost of games in general would have to go up to subsidize the labor to bring content to all platforms.

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

#148

Post by yatac42 »

hunter2_ wrote: post #35
paulmd wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Came here to say this too. This just needs to be the rule generally. Steam and Amazon do the same thing - get hacked and get charged for some items, if you dispute the Steam charge you lose your $5000 account, that's not a fair playing field and effectively negates the protection offered by credit card networks. Hopefully steam resolves it, that's always the first line of defense, but if they don't, you still can't c…

> music I've purchased They really ought to stop using "buy"/"purchase" metaphorically to mean something more like "one time fee for an indefinite lease that ends upon account termination." If they simply used a word better suited to the reality of the situation, then it wouldn't be a surprise that the account (which is a privilege, not a right) is a dependency of using what you paid for. Maybe something like "micro-…

> > music I've purchased

> They really ought to stop using "buy"/"purchase" metaphorically to mean something more like "one time fee for an indefinite lease that ends upon account termination."

That doesn't really apply to buying music though, does it? If Amazon banned my account, that wouldn't prevent me from listening to the MP3s I've bought from them. It would only prevent me from re-downloading them from their servers if I somehow lost all of my local copies.

But if I buy a CD from a physical store, they also don't give a me another copy for free if I lose it (even without account termination entering into it), so I'm not really any worse off with the digital download.

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

#150

Post by thunky »

nottorp wrote: post #134
thunky wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not disagreeing, but just a note that it is possible to play Fortnite without spending a single cent or giving out a credit card. It's not a pay to play game, so you're not limiting yourself by keeping your money. You just miss out on skins & emotes. So this line from the linked ftc post is incorrect: "Epic charges for in-game purchases designed to enhance game play" Money does not enhance game play. Epic also hands…

> Money does not enhance game play. Common misconception. In reality, allowing for IAPs has changed the design of the game greatly. For example, those cosmetics you don't consider important have been made non attainable from normal gameplay. Every little pixel sold as an IAP also means the design of the game is changed to give you an incentive to buy the IAP, instead of entertaining you.

I don't understand what you mean. When I say "game play" I mean the how the game is actually played. Things like available weapons or reachable maps affect game play. Cosmetics don't. Skins and emotes don't make you play the game differently therefore they don't enhance "game play". Just like wearing a fancy shirt doesn't enhance the game play of chess.

Fortnite even allows you to enter competitive tournaments and compete for money without spending a dime. A player that spent $0 and is using the default skin is at no disadvantage vs a player that spent $1000.

Post reply on HN