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

201–210 of 318 posts

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

#201

Post by aqme28 »

ridgered4 wrote: post #106
BiteCode_dev wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, it's absolutely horrible. It's just a browser and it's not well done. It takes seconds sometimes for clicks to register. Often I get blank screens and have to go back to reload the page I want. Everything about this browser-based UI is slow and cumbersome and brittle.

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

#202

Post by mardifoufs »

yyyk wrote: post #189
ridgered4 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's a Web-based UI which doesn't allow font size control or zoom, which deserves an achievement or something since nearly all of them allow this rather easily (either in UI or by editing CSS). Maybe a magnifier glass to help with the tiny font size.

What web engine is steam using? Has it always been a Web UI? I only started gaming on steam back in 2014, and it was a webui already back then so I'm curious!

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

#203

Post by thomastjeffery »

bioemerl wrote: post #157
capableweb wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also why steam is still the leader despite having a terrible UI: they have been very good to their customers. Steams core customer is the game developers/publishers, who they take a ~30% (last time I checked) cut from the profits from. The people who buy games are simply users of Steam, and Steam has to treat them well, otherwise their actual customers (developers/publishers) won't get as much profits, and indirect…

Developers don't pay that 30 percent, users do. You could even say that steam is a customer of the developers (I buy your game at x to sell for y), and the average person is a customer of steam and the devs. I don't really see the customers or the developers as the core. Both groups tie into each other in a big network effect.

That is a pointless distinction.

30% of the price is distributed to Valve instead of developers.

Whether that results in developers obtaining lower profits or users paying higher prices is entirely subjective; that depends on what would happen otherwise, which is categorically unprovable.

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

#204

Post by pwinnski »

j_maffe wrote: post #171
pwinnski wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple makes it incredibly easy to manage and cancel subscriptions. Would that all companies matched them! One reason I don't begrudge them their 30% is that I could easily lose that much or more trying to get some vendors to cancel subscriptions if I didn't have the easy options Apple provides. Epic is clearly one of them.

You have the (only) only options Apple provides because they maintain a monopoly

What does that have to do with anything I said? Or is it just a reflex anytime anyone mentions Apple?

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

#205

Post by madeofpalk »

cwkoss wrote: post #174
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…

Alternately (or additionally), I'd love for regulatory prohibition of implied ownership of these sorts of items. Ex. if access is revokable, it's illegal to use the word "Buy" alone - have to use "Rent" or "License" or "Buy License" or something that doesn't imply ownership (because ownership is not being offered)

I don't feel like this is a meaningful change.

If steam changed all the "Buy" to "Rent" on it's website, nothing would actually change.

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

#206

Post by justinclift »

yatac42 wrote: post #192
justinclift wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But if I buy a CD from a physical store ... This is literally the nature of physical vs digital goods. We can, and should, do better for customers than the current systems from Steam and Amazon (among others) allow.

Which current systems? For games on Steam and movies basically anywhere, the current system is that after I buy the game/movie, I can watch/play it for as long as I have access to the account. If I lose the account or the service shuts down, I'm fucked. That sucks. For games on GOG or MP3s basically anywhere, the current system is that I buy it and then I can play the game/music forever as long as I don't lose the do…

Good point, I've specifically mentioned Steam and Amazon.

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

#207

Post by [deleted] »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #162
smugma wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does Apple App Store do this?

Absolutely. Check out this document for example: https://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/us/term... > All Transactions are final. Purchased something by mistake? Tough. > If technical problems prevent or unreasonably delay delivery of Content, your exclusive and sole remedy is either replacement of the Content or refund of the price paid, as determined by Apple. Unhappy? Your only recourse is to beg Appl…

[deleted]

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

#208

Post by jsmeaton »

Hah. A few years ago my young child (6) racked up an $800 bill on consmetics playing on the Wii. It was my fault - I didn’t require a password to make purchases and he spammed the buy button.

To his credit he came straight to me and told me he got all of the items “for free”.

After a huge muck around I finally got a refund (dealing with a combination of Nintendo and Epic) but the outcome was that I could no longer use a credit card to make purchase on my account ever again.

They’ve known for a long long time that accidental purchases happen and avoided having a decent path to refund (up until somewhat recently according to TFA) so I’m glad they’re being slapped with regulations.

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

#209

Post by yatac42 »

justinclift wrote: post #206
yatac42 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which current systems? For games on Steam and movies basically anywhere, the current system is that after I buy the game/movie, I can watch/play it for as long as I have access to the account. If I lose the account or the service shuts down, I'm fucked. That sucks. For games on GOG or MP3s basically anywhere, the current system is that I buy it and then I can play the game/music forever as long as I don't lose the do…

Good point, I've specifically mentioned Steam and Amazon.

Yes and buying music on Amazon (which is what the comment I originally responded to was about), you get system number 2, i.e. a DRM-free MP3 download.

Buying movies on Amazon is a different matter entirely, but the comment and my reply were specifically about music.

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

#210

Post by paulryanrogers »

madeofpalk wrote: post #205
cwkoss wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternately (or additionally), I'd love for regulatory prohibition of implied ownership of these sorts of items. Ex. if access is revokable, it's illegal to use the word "Buy" alone - have to use "Rent" or "License" or "Buy License" or something that doesn't imply ownership (because ownership is not being offered)

I don't feel like this is a meaningful change. If steam changed all the "Buy" to "Rent" on it's website, nothing would actually change.

Customers would be informed. Many would leave for GOG.com
Post reply on HN