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

261–270 of 318 posts

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

#261

Post by ClumsyPilot »

criley2 wrote: post #173
SkyBelow wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that the businesses have made customer's ability to access their previous purchases dependent upon continuing to have a business relationship with the account. If, when closing the account, the business paid back full value for everything they were removing access to, the ruling might be different. But they aren't doing that. If you are a business doing more normal business, selling something with no s…

> The problem is that the businesses have made customer's ability to access their previous purchases dependent upon continuing to have a business relationship with the account That's not a problem really. Think of country clubs. Your investment is completely lost the second you stop paying. I understand that folks may dislike the subscription model, but it's not illegal.

> Think of country clubs. Your investment is completely lost the second you stop paying

By steam sells games for $60 a piece, they are not a subscribtion service. You can't have it both ways.

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

#262

Post by ClumsyPilot »

grog454 wrote: post #244
mrguyorama wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That has always been a massive copout.

What makes it a copout? I've had friends choose the resign option. I've been fortunate enough that my resignations didn't involve ultimatums.

Was it effective -> did whatever they were resigning in protest of, get removed?

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

#263

Post by camhart »

naniwaduni wrote: post #257
camhart wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bank profits from it... no incentive on the banks part to stop it.

What part of a chargeback do you think is profitable for the bank?

My understanding is the dispute fee goes mostly to the bank.

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

#264

Post by ClumsyPilot »

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…

> 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.

You don't, but, doctors and structural engineers do.

I was saying for years that a licensing proffeshional body, like the one other proffesions have, would improve things in our industry.

When was the last time a bridge fell down because someone boss bullied a structural engineer into suigning it off? They know you know that any engineer that agrees to do doggy shit is risking their licence, and it's not worth if for them.

This industry would improve significantly if it had a proffeshional body with teeth, and for that you need licensing like doctors and other proffeshions have.

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

#265

Post by olliej »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #253
olliej wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having it physically isn't relevant. Plenty of people still buy games as physical media, and those games, including single player, all stop functioning the moment the company turns off the DRM - errr, "advanced feature" -- servers. Having something physical is meaningless when every piece of software comes with T&Cs that say it's dependent on server support.

What happens legally if I buy a CD/DVD in a store, without signing a contract, with software, but the software doesn't work because servers don't?

If you buy a modern game on CD or DVD, then yes most modern software will not work. If you buy a modern DRM'd piece of software, the DRM approach that has been unified on is online activation (if not online-all-the-time).

Ostensibly you could return it, but then I've seen many things that say "opening this container means you have accepted the terms", but even if not subsequent installation comes with mandatory T&Cs to use the product. You're meant to be able to return the product for a refund if you don't agree to the terms, but my recollection is that companies are terrible and fight you on it.

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

#266

Post by makeitdouble »

naniwaduni wrote: post #211
camhart wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is the business side of this to consider. Disputes are expensive--companies are forced to pay significant fees whether they win or lose the dispute. A dishonest customer lying to their bank about your product/service should be able to be banned from using your product/service. Otherwise, what's to stop them from maliciously charging then filing disputes over and over again? To be clear, I'm talking about a diff…

> Otherwise, what's to stop them from maliciously charging then filing disputes over and over again? Their bank?

From the bank/issuer's perspective, if the customer pays for payment protection, their matrix becomes:

- they side with the merchant and penalize the customer: they risk losing the customer, their purchases and other recurring fees. The merchant does nothing more for them.

- they side with the customer and hit the merchant: the merchant has no recourse outside of providing proof of wrongdoing on the customer side.

If they have these proofs, the issuer hits the customer, who would need to get back to the merchant to further fight the charges (the bank is now out of the picture).

If the merchant doesn't have any proof, their only possible action would be to cut off the issuer, but then they're potentially cutting off a whole slice of their customer base, so it's pretty unlikely.

All in all, the bank has very little incentive to side with the merchant from the start.

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

#267

Post by Pxtl »

yatac42 wrote: post #148
hunter2_ wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 se…

I don't see why this is being downvoted. Music is the one digital good I feel the most confident purchasing because I know I'm getting a drm-unencumbered standard format like MP3 or AAC. I have all my music purchases backed up like I do my family photos. Yes, I also listen to my purchases on cloud services like YouTube Music, but if YouTube banned me tomorrow I would lose zero songs.

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

#268

Post by buzer »

nottorp wrote: post #186
thunky wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 co…

Don't think the whole player base is as obsessed with "competing". Most are there to socialize. Or who knows, "compete" on flashy skins.

I'm glad I got used to wearing a literal poo poo hat (https://99porings.com/revo-classic/guides/firstjob/acolyte/b...). Default glamor/skin is never ugly enough.

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

#269

Post by nkrisc »

camhart wrote: post #111
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…

There is the business side of this to consider. Disputes are expensive--companies are forced to pay significant fees whether they win or lose the dispute. A dishonest customer lying to their bank about your product/service should be able to be banned from using your product/service. Otherwise, what's to stop them from maliciously charging then filing disputes over and over again? To be clear, I'm talking about a diff…

> Otherwise, what's to stop them from maliciously charging then filing disputes over and over again?

You stop selling to them. You don’t need to ban their account to do that.

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

#270

Post by bruce511 »

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.

I think it would change, but Rent is also not the right word.

I'm familiar with Rent and I intuit what it means. I have access to an asset for a limited time, and then I can choose to continue renting it, or not. The decision is in my hands.

License might be a better word. Because what they're selling is a "one time payment for use of this asset for an undetermined amount of time" - that's not "buy" but it's also not "rent".

When my license ends it's likely I can't get another. Certainly its not my decision to make.

The period of the license us unknown - till you block my account, till you go under, till you decide this service is no longer available, till _your_ license-to-license expires, and so on.

So yeah, I don't think it's Rent.

Post reply on HN