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

301–310 of 318 posts

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

#301

Post by pwinnski »

evandale wrote: post #297
pwinnski wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Anyone can launch a system to manage subscriptions on any platform other than Apple's, and yet somehow all of the systems people have launched on every platform other than Apple's are worse than Apple's. In Epic's case, illegally so.

I responded to a comment from someone who apparently didn't realize that Apple's subscription system makes it exceptionally easy to cancel subscriptions.

They said:

> while Epic uses predatory tactics to trap people into subscriptions Apple and Google do the same

Which is as far from my experience as it is possible to get.

The comments from people stating that Apple exercises platform lock-in seem roughly as relevant as the current price of tea at a Foxconn factory in China.

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

#302

Post by munk-a »

pwinnski wrote: post #301
evandale wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Anyone can launch a system to manage subscriptions on any platform other than Apple's, and yet somehow all of the systems people have launched on every platform other than Apple's are worse than Apple's. In Epic's case, illegally so. I responded to a comment from someone who apparently didn't realize that Apple's subscription system makes it exceptionally easy to cancel subscriptions. They said: > while Epic uses pre…

Eh? I'm not a customer but TrueBill/Rocket Money seems to deliver a lot more value than Apple for far less of a cost while also being opt-in rather than a platform requirement.

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

#303

Post by Falkon1313 »

acomjean wrote: post #37
PurpleRamen wrote: post #6

That's the second time now I read about Epic Games paying a fine for doing something obviously shady and illegal. I slowly get the impression that Epic Games might be a bit more scammy than your average company.

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…

As an adult who plays Fortnite (and has since the relatively early days of Battle Royale mode), I agree.

I didn't even enter a credit card at all for a few years, and once I did decide to buy in, there was a full checkout process. Even after they had my card info, there was no ambiguity when I was buying something.

I do understand that might be different on consoles though, since consoles have such a constrained and clunky UI compared to a PC. That seemed to be what the main complaint was getting at - apparently on consoles the 'view skin from your locker' button that you use to take a look at it is the same button used to one-click buy one from the shop? That certainly does sound like a dark pattern!

As for 'v-bucks', which aren't real money, I don't mind them. If you do stuff in-game you get tons of free v-bucks. I bought the battle pass once a couple years ago and it's been free ever since then, because doing the quests gives you enough v-bucks to buy the next one and, over time, enough free v-bucks for some skins too. Again if you get the battle pass once and play it, you'll end up with tons of free skins too. And they're all just cosmetic.

And sure, I'd generally rather just pay once for many games, but I think Fortnite actually does quite a good job when it comes to justifying paying more than once.

Every season there are new maps, new characters, new mechanics, sometimes whole new game modes. It really does keep the game fresh and fun. And keeps the player base coming back for years so there are always people to match against.

The "pay once and then that's all there will ever be" model very often sees a quick short life for online activity. Before long only a few die-hards are still around trying to find others to play with. And then the company shuts down the servers. Being able to self-host servers can help a small game live longer. But a game that requires 100 players per match? It would probably be a wasteland in a few months once the initial mass got bored.

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

#304

Post by Falkon1313 »

thunky wrote: post #131
haunter wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I play Fortnite so I can answer. Basically purchase in Fortnite was instant. You clicked/touched on the button > you bought it instantly. There were no confirmation screens, no "are you sure" etc nothing. One click purchase. And cancellation was very limited, basically non existent. Credit cards were also saved instantly so no further interaction needed for later purchases, so some kids ended up spending a lot withou…

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…

Yes. Also I think they do it right on two counts.

One purchase of the Battle Pass (And secondly, each season they change the map, add new mechanics, new skins, and the season pass quests change, sometimes even new modes of play. That keeps players coming back, which means you don't have to wait in the lobby for hours to try to get a match because everyone got bored.

I'm going into my 6th year playing on 1 season pass. Somewhere over 1000 hours of play. That's a whole lot of value for less than $10.00; less than 1¢/hour.

I have spent a couple times to try the original Save The World game (which was not the free-to-play model) and to buy two specific skins. But it was clear each time, and I did not see any tricky one-click-buy dark patterns.

However, I understand the UI is different on consoles, which have such limited buttons. It seems that's where the main complaint is. And that's a totally reasonable complaint if the button that usually does 'X' or 'Y' is at other times a 'One-click buy' button.

Really any game that uses just a console controller for anything more complicated or with more potential consequences than losing a game of Tetris really needs some safeguards due to their clunky UIs.

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

#305

Post by Falkon1313 »

account42 wrote: post #287
elpool2 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you purchased something in-game with "v-bucks" then you can get your v-bucks back if you still haven't actually used the item in a game yet, or if it was purchased in the last 30 days (up to 3 times). They don't usually refund actual money, as far as I can tell.

So effectively they don't provide refunds at all? Non-withdrawable store credit should probably be illegal too.

V-bucks aren't really store credit though. They're non-refundable and it makes sense because you can also get them through in-game actions.

Maybe an 'Oops! I didn't mean to do that.' undo button immediately after buying some. But it would be better just to make the checkout process explicit like they do on PC.

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

#306

Post by pwinnski »

munk-a wrote: post #302
pwinnski wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone can launch a system to manage subscriptions on any platform other than Apple's, and yet somehow all of the systems people have launched on every platform other than Apple's are worse than Apple's. In Epic's case, illegally so. I responded to a comment from someone who apparently didn't realize that Apple's subscription system makes it exceptionally easy to cancel subscriptions. They said: > while Epic uses pre…

Eh? I'm not a customer but TrueBill/Rocket Money seems to deliver a lot more value than Apple for far less of a cost while also being opt-in rather than a platform requirement.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that when I said "all" I should clarify that I meant "all platforms that provide a similar level of services, including subscriptions on behalf of third parties for which payment is made centrally."

RockeyMoney is great, but not only is it irrelevant in the extreme to the original comment at the root of this thread, it's very much an apples-to-guavas comparison with the Google/Apple/Epic/Valve/etc model of operation.

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

#307

Post by munk-a »

pwinnski wrote: post #306
munk-a wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh? I'm not a customer but TrueBill/Rocket Money seems to deliver a lot more value than Apple for far less of a cost while also being opt-in rather than a platform requirement.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that when I said "all" I should clarify that I meant "all platforms that provide a similar level of services, including subscriptions on behalf of third parties for which payment is made centrally." RockeyMoney is great, but not only is it irrelevant in the extreme to the original comment at the root of this thread, it's very much an apples-to-guavas comparison with the Google/Apple/Epic/V…

I can certainly see where you're coming from - but I don't think that subscription management necessarily needs to be in the domain of payment processors and products that allow third party subscription management are pretty appealing to me. At the moment they obviously can't manage subscriptions made through the iStore simply because there is a walled garden keeping them out - but I'd prefer a universe where those subscriptions could be managed by third parties (so that I could manage all my subscriptions through a single client) to one where each walled garden delivered a slick by completely separate and incompatible (by design) tool to manage subscriptions within their system.

Apple has one of the best subscription management tools as a seller platform (though I do personally think Steam's is better - but that's just preference)... but a better subscription management system would be providing an interoperable system that third parties could interact with and help control.

We're only really talking Apples-to-Guavas because these systems are configured to defend themselves from any cooperation.

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

#308

Post by ClumsyPilot »

LanceH wrote: post #292
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Have you met children? They don't need dark patterns to make bad decisions

Exactly, thats why you are not allowed to sell them alcohol, drugs and worst of all, financial products like loans.

> 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

Children below age of criminal responsibility can't be prosecuted. What exactly are you trying to accomplish?

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

#309

Post by WorldMaker »

moffkalast wrote: post #236
CobrastanJorji wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think ultimately the only way to solve this is to legislate some notion of digital "ownership." Steam SOLD me a game. Amazon SOLD me an e-book. Shut down my account or refuse to do further business with me as you like, that's your right, but if you SOLD me something, you can't have it back. You need to either make it available to me or return my money. If Amazon wants to put the word "buy" on a button, then somethi…

> Otherwise the button needs to read "acquire revokable license" or something. Somebody get the EU on that, stat.

The GDPR flagged this as a "TODO" item and left it explicitly there, so someone was at least already thinking about it.

I sometimes wonder if it is going to take a massive Estate Law court case to push the needle on this. We're about to the point where "Grandma's Steam Library" is going to be big enough in expected cash value that descendants would meaningfully fight over it, and open up the can of worms that is current digital goods laws. (Including the fact that technically Grandma's Steam Library has *no* survivorship guarantees and Steam's TOS, like most TOS agreements in current digital services, terminates along with the person it was contracted with.)

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

#310

Post by autoexec »

munk-a wrote: post #214
CobrastanJorji wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think ultimately the only way to solve this is to legislate some notion of digital "ownership." Steam SOLD me a game. Amazon SOLD me an e-book. Shut down my account or refuse to do further business with me as you like, that's your right, but if you SOLD me something, you can't have it back. You need to either make it available to me or return my money. If Amazon wants to put the word "buy" on a button, then somethi…

Isn't a big blocker in this space the fact that when you can hide behind a digital license to use a copy of the game the potential that you may, at some point in the future, be unable to deliver a copy of that game to the consumer isn't a big issue? I had thought that electronic goods dealers (e-books, steam, whatever) had some issues with actually selling goods because of the fact that a sold good needs to continue…

> Isn't a big blocker in this space the fact that when you can hide behind a digital license to use a copy of the game the potential that you may, at some point in the future, be unable to deliver a copy of that game to the consumer isn't a big issue?

It is for online only things, but if you buy a game and download it that shouldn't come with some assumption or requirement that I can forever re-download a copy. If I buy a download, it's fair to expect me to backup the thing I purchased. That works for music, movies, and ebooks - any DRM that requires a connection to some server, or an account should allow for transfers and companies who use that kind of DRM should be required to notify owners and patch the DRM out of products if the company no longer wants to maintain the servers and accounts provide that protection.

MMOs are still a problem since you aren't selling the game, just access to the systems that run it, but I think most people understand that.

Post reply on HN