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

251–260 of 340 posts

Re: 'My son spent £3,160 in one game'

#251

Post by Rch_East »

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…

Start with why Nintendo games are non-exploitative: no microtransactions, and a single retail purchase.

Regulate children's games such that they must have a minimum price (eg. $4.99) and contain no microtransactions.

The same could be done with pornography: require $4.99/month as the minimum charge, paid via credit card, to access, and DNS ban all sites which do not acquiesce.

Re: 'My son spent £3,160 in one game'

#252

Post by foldingmoney »

fkdo wrote: post #230
foldingmoney wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All business behaviour is (potentially) predatory. It's the job of regulators to set the rules, and for businesses to play within those rules as optimally as they can. It's definitely not the job of companies to _not_ give their customers what they want. If something permissible could increase their user engagement but they opt not to do it for ethical reasons, they just lose share to the less ethical companies.

It's my right as a member of a democracy to call out when a company is doing something unethical with the hope of swaying the opinion of my peers against such business practices. It's my privilege to do so on this platform. This type of behavior is unethical which is an entirely different thing than illegal. I hope we can adjust regulations on the market to make such behavior illegal. I have this hope because I don't…

Yes, I probably should have framed my answer more carefully.

My point wasn't that people shouldn't complain about this stuff. My point was just that businesses, by their nature, are sociopathic (regardless of whether anyone who works at them is a sociopath).

Re: 'My son spent £3,160 in one game'

#253

Post by Thiez »

gruez wrote: post #158
oaw-bct-ar-bamf wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Here in the Netherlands it is exceptionally hard to kick someone out of "their" home when doing so would leave them homeless. Being 1 month behind on your rent for 1 or 2 months may get you some stern letters, but you won't get kicked out if it happens once.

Re: 'My son spent £3,160 in one game'

#254

Post by Arn_Thor »

What were these parents thinking? This isn't a new issue. People have been reading stories like this in the news for a decade and still they hand their kid their iPad and say "go play over there while dad watches the news..."

You can literally use your phone and google/apple account as a credit card nowadays. It's irresponsible to just hand that to a child. Ignorance is not an excuse. (that said, of course there should be consumer protections in place to limit the damage)

Re: 'My son spent £3,160 in one game'

#255

Post by seventhtiger »

sidlls wrote: post #152
blackhaz wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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....

This is because the platform holders have trained the customers to value the games at $0. Even a game with an equivalent experience to PC or console will feel much more expensive on mobile at the same price.

Apple and Google care about the attractiveness of the platform. They want you to buy the phone with the impression that apps are included for free.

Re: 'My son spent £3,160 in one game'

#256

Post by pjtr »

syndacks wrote: post #208
opportune wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think, like with other addictions, you need to take a holistic view of video game addiction that also includes the circumstances of the addicted people during their transition from casual use, to abuse, to addiction. Why? Because most people don't get addicted to video games, just like most people don't get addicted to alcohol. And while you might be able to chalk some of it up to addictive personalities (predispos…

>Because most people don't get addicted to video games, just like most people don't get addicted to alcohol So, uhh, what _do_ they get addicted to?

Coffee, religion, cigarettes, facebook, anger

Re: 'My son spent £3,160 in one game'

#257

Post by scns »

pjtr wrote: post #256
syndacks wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Because most people don't get addicted to video games, just like most people don't get addicted to alcohol So, uhh, what _do_ they get addicted to?

Coffee, religion, cigarettes, facebook, anger

shopping, sex ...

Re: 'My son spent £3,160 in one game'

#258

Post by HenryBemis »

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #91
HenryBemis wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use a "7 accounts setup" for my finances. One of my accounts is labelled "Internet" and has no more than £50-£100 at any given moment. It is the card used for Paypal, Amazon, Spotify, etc. If that card gets compromised I won't lose more than that, and my bank will most likely return the funds (yes even if it's just a Debit Card). If the account runs low then Spotify won't get paid in time and I won't cry about it :…

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

Credit card = Loan

Debit Card = money in the bank.

I am not trashing the credit industry, but when they give me 1% and I give them 24%...

And in the UK I do get a refund for fraudulent purchases (e.g. someone copied my card details from a store and made some purchases of women's shoes from somewhere in the UK I have never veen) - NatWest flagged it, alerted me, refunded me.

Re: 'My son spent £3,160 in one game'

#259

Post by HenryBemis »

gruez wrote: post #151
wcoenen wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Not for online, for physical purchases. Another fundamental/SHOCKING difference between Europe vs USA is that when you pay with your card in a restaurant in Europe, the waiter brings the POS over to you, while in the USA the waiter disappears with everyone's cards for 5mins ;)

Not good security is it? They can take their time to scan/photograph the cards etc, while in Europe the card's details are for seconds and right in front of you.

Re: 'My son spent £3,160 in one game'

#260

Post by watwut »

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…

> It's strange then that most of these games aren't that interesting.

Most dont earn money. It is winner takes all market.

> Who are the players of these that make up the new class of gamers?

I am. A while ago I ditched "traditional" games entirely and are not coming back, ever. I played only mobile games after. Through it is less so now, I did not ditched them and are willing to continue playing them (unlike traditional that I have decided to not play again).

Post reply on HN