Epic Games to pay $245M for tricking users into making unwanted charges • Hacker News Board

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

#291

Post by account42 » Thu, Mar 16, 2023, 12:06 PM UTC

nottorp wrote: post #132

hinkley wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a bit of a sweet spot with replayability and DLCs. I have a hard time finishing games. When they add new chapters to the game they’ve moved the goal posts as it were, and that doesn’t feel good. If they introduce some new side quests and a new race, I’ve still finished the game (or let’s be honest, got 90% of the way). But if I want to play Skyrim again as a telekinetic khajiit then I might pay for DLC.

> But if I want to play Skyrim again as a telekinetic khajiit then I might pay for DLC. You must be new to Bethesda games. You buy the "game of the year edition" with all DLC included when it's on 70% discount. You don't buy at launch :)

Unfortunately, that doesn't apply to just Bethesda but to most games these days. Even some indies are starting to do the whole micro-DLC nickle and diming.

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

#292

Post by LanceH » Thu, Mar 16, 2023, 1:46 PM UTC

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #260

LanceH wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They weren't getting refunded because kids were genuinely using their parents' credit cards. Parents are alleging fraud to the cc companies, but not reporting this as fraud legally.

> Parents are alleging fraud to the cc companies, but not reporting this as fraud legally. Just so we are on the same page, is the issue that they are not calling the police and saying "my kid has used my creditcard, could you prosecute them for fraud?"

That's what's really happening, right? Parents have handed over their credit cards and are having some misgivings about the purchases their children are making. Have you met children? They don't need dark patterns to make bad decisions.

> The company also made it easy for children to make purchases while playing Fortnite without requiring any parental consent.

So the kids had their parent's credit card on file for a free to play game and this is Epic's fault? Wouldn't having their credit card on file to buy anything they want be consent at some level? The same level of consent as any other online shop?

The only reason for the settlement is that this is one of those "cost of doing business" fines for Epic. They are out of this for a relatively small amount of money, and the FTC gets a "win" out of it.

Oh, so yes to your question.

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

#293

Post by SimonPStevens » Thu, Mar 16, 2023, 1:50 PM UTC

hinkley wrote: post #73

SimonPStevens wrote: post #17

Quite frankly in-game purchases has destroyed an entire industry for me. Mobile games are so filled with this junk I don't even bother looking at them any more. I avoid anything on PC that has a store, repeating season passes or virtual currency of any kind. It's even coloured my view of the types of add-on DLC that 20 years ago would have been a legitimate expansion pack, purely because it feels too similar to the d…

There’s a bit of a sweet spot with replayability and DLCs. I have a hard time finishing games. When they add new chapters to the game they’ve moved the goal posts as it were, and that doesn’t feel good. If they introduce some new side quests and a new race, I’ve still finished the game (or let’s be honest, got 90% of the way). But if I want to play Skyrim again as a telekinetic khajiit then I might pay for DLC.

Yeah, expansion type DLCs are at the border here. But the overall experience with scammy stores has left me leaning away from trusting any game with any significant DLC.

For example. Dirt Rally 2 honestly feels like a complete scam. The base game comes with 6 rally locations (not counting some rally cross tracks). And there are 7 more available as DLC. The base game feels intentionally slimmed down to make you feel you need to buy the DLC. it pads in extra junk content to make it seem long without actually having much there (like for example the rally cross tournaments make you compete in about 6 rounds of heats on the same short track to make it seem like there are lots of events, but in any other game all the rally cross tracks would have been a single event with perhaps one qualifier and one final on each track). Lots of the daily challenge type activities use the DLCs so are unavailable if you don't by them. All the locations are listed in the menus along with the not-included ones with just a small "DLC" flag across a corner. In addition there are perhaps dozens of cars available as DLC. And several very unclear things like the "flat out pack" which incorporates some of the other DLCs It very much feels like they've taken one game, a split it up into small parts to make you pay more for what would have been one purchase in the 90s. And the multiple small packs with overlapping content seem designed to make you accidentally pay more or buy the same thing twice through confusion. I completely refuse to engage with this and despite being a bit fan of rally games I won't touch this DLC, and tbh if I'd known the game was like this I wouldn't have even touched the base game.

On the other hand, Mario Kart 8 on switch comes with 12 "cups" each with 4 unique tracks, so 48 tracks in total. They have a single DLC which adds a further 12 cups and 48 more tracks for £22. (About half the price of the base game). 48 tracks in the base game feels substantial, I was happy with the game and didn't feel short changed. And the DLC that doubles the number of tracks also feels worth it without being a scam. But I have to be honest, because of the scammy nature of the rest of the business my default stance is to avoid DLCs so it was a while before I purchased this one, despite it being on the better end of the spectrum.

So there's a good way and a. And way to do DLC. But the bad way is poisening the whole market and putting me off considering the DLCs that are done well.

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

#294

Post by yamtaddle » Thu, Mar 16, 2023, 2:26 PM UTC

robertlagrant wrote: post #234

yamtaddle wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could just actually sell things instead. As in, sell for real , not some at-our-discretion lease. Nobody's forcing companies to gate access and add DRM and all that. Such a change probably wouldn't result in perpetual hosting, but in actually selling things . Or, in only providing rentals. Either way, the situation would be clearer to the end user.

What are you talking about? Do you mean send out games on DVD?

In the case of games, anything that doesn't mean losing access to an account stops you from being able to play games you already bought. So, GOG wouldn't need to change much, but Steam might. Wouldn't have to mean shipping physical media.

Or they can just stop using terms like "buy" and otherwise implying ownership, instead making it clear you're just leasing the game.

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

#295

Post by philistine » Thu, Mar 16, 2023, 3:26 PM UTC

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.

It's a batty Mac citizen, with slow startup, weird fonts, the exact same UI as on Windows, and the shortcuts are all wrong. It's probably the same on Linux, where it's a Windows app on the OS as well.

Valve doesn't have enough taste to see a problem.

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

#296

Post by tmtvl » Thu, Mar 16, 2023, 3:34 PM UTC

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…

> 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.

Slight pedantic nit, some games on Steam are DRM-free (though this is in no way indicated, you can find a list online, though*), those you can back up and keep using even if your account gets banned.

* https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/The_big_list_of_DRM-free_g...

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

#297

Post by evandale » Thu, Mar 16, 2023, 4:53 PM UTC

pwinnski wrote: post #204

j_maffe wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There's no system to compare against the supposed "easy" system Apple provides because it's impossible to manage your subscriptions outside of that.

If there was some other system out there that was easier to manage subscriptions in and only takes 10% it wouldn't matter because Apple wouldn't allow you to use it.

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

#298

Post by dnissley » Thu, Mar 16, 2023, 5:09 PM UTC

akhosravian wrote: post #160

dnissley wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine the solution will simply be to charge higher prices across the board. We will all pay for the ability to charge back and not lose account access, including subsidizing the most flagrant abusers of such a policy. This could be a good trade off, but I think it's important to highlight that there is definitely no free lunch here and that legislating this problem away will have some downstream effects.

What’s the actual cost for chargebacks here? Presumably they are quite capable of revoking licenses to the purchased item. This is slightly hairier for in app purchases laundered through a game currency run by a third party, but still seems doable. Is there a reason the cost isn’t asymptotically close to 0 here? In the worst case they stop allowing an account to make new purchases while keeping what they’ve bought. I…

Chargeback fees from processors are pretty steep -- $10+ per transaction. It's not simply the cost of the refund itself. The purpose of those fees is to incentivize merchants to be honest and good to their customers, although in the case of larger players those incentives can become perverse.

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

#299

Post by dnissley » Thu, Mar 16, 2023, 5:13 PM UTC

account42 wrote: post #281

dnissley wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine the solution will simply be to charge higher prices across the board. We will all pay for the ability to charge back and not lose account access, including subsidizing the most flagrant abusers of such a policy. This could be a good trade off, but I think it's important to highlight that there is definitely no free lunch here and that legislating this problem away will have some downstream effects.

This assumes that current prices at all related to cost, which they are not for non-scarce goods like games and other digital content. Prices are set to maximize sales * revenue and adding a minor cost for Steam doesn't really factor into that.

They are related to cost on some level. This type of legislation would introduce some costs for merchants, even digital ones, because of chargeback fees charged by processors. That would be passed on to the customer in addition to whatever profit calculation those merchants are making.

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

#300

Post by jjulius » Thu, Mar 16, 2023, 6:08 PM UTC

account42 wrote: post #282

vuln wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well after _years_ of getting pissed on most people move their leg instead of complaining about it. :)

Do they? Seems to me most people just put up with the piss because the spot is convenient.

Right, most consumers accept it because it's complicated for the average person to set up a NAS box with sonarr/radarr/automagic torrenting. They don't move their leg because they don't really have other options.