• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    232 months ago

    The manipulative tactics listed in the article:

    • Consumers cannot see the real cost of digital items, leading to overspending: the lack of price transparency of premium in-game currencies and the need to buy extra currency in bundles pushes consumers to spend more. In-game purchases should always be displayed in real money (e.g.: Euro), or at least they should display the equivalence in real-world currency.
    • Companies’ claims that gamers prefer in-game premium currencies are wrong: Many consumers find this unnecessary step misleading and prefer buying items directly with real money.
    • Consumers are often denied their rights when using premium in-game currencies, tied to unfair terms favouring game developers.
    • Children are even more vulnerable to these manipulative tactics. Data shows that children in Europe are spending on average €39 per month on in-game purchases. While they are among the ones playing the most, they have limited financial literacy and are easily swayed by virtual currencies.
    • JackGreenEarth
      link
      fedilink
      English
      92 months ago

      All of these would be fixed by banning in game purchases with real money.

      • Caveman
        link
        English
        52 months ago

        That’s probably not going to work. There will be less incentive for companies to work on a game if they can’t turn it into money stream. Especially big and expensive games. I think the outline above is pretty fair and a good start. They should throw on top of it banning loot boxes since they essentially develop gambling behavior in children.

        • JackGreenEarth
          link
          fedilink
          English
          42 months ago

          I don’t get this. Charge a reasonable price for the game, which should include all in game content. Don’t make people pay for the game and then for more stuff in the game, especially if it gives them an unfair advantage over other players just for having paid.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            12 months ago

            Then games like Fortnite or Apex Legends wouldn’t make sense because the whole idea is that in-game spending funds ongoing development. Development and servers cost money, and assuming that new game sales will continue indefinitely doesn’t make any sense.

            What I think we should do is require discontinued MP games to be self-hostable, improve price transparency, and ban in-game purchases for minors. That should do a lot to correct the poor behavior of these companies without destroying the evergreen MP game model. This won’t impact games that already do things mostly ethically (e.g. Minecraft) and will require changes to the worst of the abusers.

      • @IsThisAnAI
        link
        English
        -22 months ago

        I’m so tired of this shit. I don’t like the model so let’s ban it! It’s a free god damn game.

        Can you name a single FoSS OS that isn’t charging for a SLA’ed security updates? Selling software this way was created by the open source teams in the first place.

        • JackGreenEarth
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12 months ago

          I don’t know what SLA’ed security updates is, but charging for software support outside of the software, is different from paying for perks in a game that give you an in game advantage over other players just because you paid and they didn’t.

          • @IsThisAnAI
            link
            English
            0
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            So we’re just inventing stuff here? The vast vast majority of games have cosmetic based dlc.

            I love how you are splitting hairs here too. Security updates are optional, got it 🙄

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      62 months ago

      Having to buy a number of in game coins that doesn’t match the price of items should be illegal