I wish the Italian regulators wild success beyond their imagination.
I hope if they decide on fines that they weigh it against the finances of the entire Microsoft Corporation. Really let Microsoft enjoy the synergy that these large-scale acquisitions bring.
Has anyone other than Bobby Kotick and the other previous ABK shareholders benefitted from the acquisition? Xbox hasn’t gotten any more successful as a brand, the consoles aren’t selling, Game Pass subscriptions only keep getting more expensive (which I’d imagine leading to retention issues), they need to put more and more games on rivaling platforms, they've shuttered studios they've previously purchased, and these days I imagine they’d rather use that cash on AI instead.
I expect Xbox is nothing but a subscription service in five years, no studios and no consoles. The acquisition feels like someone was bored and wanted to spend some money, once they had it they immediately lost interest and now it’s all just fading into obscurity.
> I hope if they decide on fines that they weigh it against the finances of the entire Microsoft Corporation.
For more serious offenses I agree that should be the norm, but we're talking about mobile games being annoying. Even with the "won't someone think of the children" angle it sounds excessive. What have we really lost from mobile Call of Duty not being better?
> Has anyone other than Bobby Kotick and the other previous ABK shareholders benefitted from the acquisition?
Me, as a consumer. I haven't purchased a game in over five years and I've played a ton on Game Pass. And the diversity of games I've played is greater than before, there's many indie games I wouldn't otherwise have tried. The catalog is high quality and hasn't descended into garbage like Netflix over the years. It's been too good a value to feel possible and however long they want to keep it up, that's great.
"The Immoral Design of Diablo Immortal" by Josh Strife Hayes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o17lBUZgjTs
"(..) twenty two different in-game currencies (..)"
Europe seems to have adopted the practice of looting American companies.
Now they just need a cartoon camel.
[flagged]
>The authority is also looking into the games’ parental control features, as the default settings lets minors make in-game purchases, play for long periods without restraints, and allow them to chat with others in-game.
is this satire?
No, those are regulations that exist in other countries to keep kids from being gambling zombies. Many countries are adopting limits and controls for minors. South Korea was one of the first as professional gaming requires a license.
Not sure if you have children, but this is exactly what a healthy government regulatory framework looks like.
What does healthy parenting look like then?
When did "healthy parenting" become a full-time cybersecurity job with no training, adversaries backed by infinite capital, teams of PhDs optimizing for addiction, and sexual predators from around the globe dialoguing with your child through any glass surface your child can get their hands on?
Your analogy about drunk drivers actually makes my point: we don't just tell parents "be vigilant". We have DUI laws, road design standards, and enforcement--systemic solutions, not just individual responsibility.
With tech, we've largely abdicated that, placing the entire burden on parents to defend against industrial-scale manipulation.
Expecting individual parents to successfully counter industrial-scale behavioral engineering is a systems failure, not a parenting failure.
Cherry picking the foreign company with the deepest pockets for “crimes” every game developer commits these days?
Surely, HN of all places recognizes that the EU fines Meta/MS any time they have a shortfall in their budget.
Considering how much big tech gets for defrauding their customers, even if the EU is only applying fines in bad faith (which they aren't) it is only a drop in the bucket in comparison...
Can you show me the graph that shows the relationship between "EU budget shortfalls" and "Meta/MS fines".
> Surely, HN of all places recognizes that the EU fines Meta/MS any time they have a shortfall in their budget
Am I supposed to be upset at this?
Hey, Donald! Just don’t send tanks. It’s okay with tariffs but tanks are a no no.
Should Apple/Google be liable as platform?
I'm trying to imagine how you envision regulation without going after the biggest individual apps that enable child financial fraud & sexual grooming.
This is a toxic government regulatory framework. Treating all consumers as suspect children first and foremost not only makes the experience worse but it defeats the purpose it was created for. I shouldn't need to submit my ID every time I want to watch a rated R movie on Netflix or cable. I shouldn't need to scan and submit my face to view a wikipedia article about anatomy. This is the end goal of such suspicious treatment.
The tools currently exist to "protect" children in game. Abdicating your responsibility as a parent is not a problem for the state to solve.
What are you talking about ?
It says that the parental settings (when enabled!) are just letting children do whatever they want by default:
- buying overpriced objects - chat without any restriction online - play without interruption for long time
I think the first one is probably the most poignant: piping children into disguised gambling addiction by default seems like a major fault. Borderline illegal, if you ask me.
It looks a lot like a phony feature "let's add a parental control, it will make people feel like we're trustworthy and bring back more revenue. And please don't disable ingame purchases by default, this is our cash cow".
> I'm talking about the above comments argument that this kind of overreach is a healthy government regulatory framework.
Which government's way of doing things would you suggest is "healthy"?
Hopefully you're not serious saying the US [appears to be healthy]?
As a game developer myself, I think young kids should not be able to make purchases on their own.
But some of the ideas on what needs to be done is just silly.
Here is some of the ideas the Norwegian Consumer Council suggested: - All things in games should be shown in real money value, not in game currency that you have to but for real money, and the price should reflect the most expensive way to get the currency. - All transactions in games should have the same rights as in real life(if you buy an item in game, you could use your right of withdrawal). - Users should be able to choose how much the want to buy of premium currency/spend.
While it might have good intentions, they have serious issues. I sell bundles of in game currency. I don't allow users to select just how much they want to buy. I don't do this as part of an evil plan, but because it makes sense. Bigger purchases give more, because the percentage lost to fees are lower. Tiny amount can not be bought, as it would not make sense considering the per transaction cost.
I don't price things in real currencies, cause after the purchase is made, it's not real money, and if it were, I'd be a financial institution and break the rules of all major card networks. It also would cause issues when it comes to inflation adjustment. If an user buys 100 "coins", they can buy something for 100 coins. If I adjust for inflation then I adjust the price of coins, not how many coins are needed to buy something in game. That would not work with real money.
Regulation is welcome, but don't do something dumb. Let most thing be as they are, but put strict rules in place on kids making purchases, that way a grown up who hopefully understands money can approve or deny the purchase.
In game purchases are a dumb thing in itself and need to go away. You can sell add-ons for your game as additional packages, like DLC. Users go to the store (e.g. Steam) and buy an add-on to the game. It's priced like a normal article and you can offer discounts if you want.
If you offer something that cannot be handled like that and absolutely has to be "in game", it's probably because you're trying to extort the players by frustrating them or try to exploit psychological weaknesses to make users pay more than they want to and you should stop that.
You do have some weird takes on why I'm doing things. The game is free. Not because I'm trying to exploit someone, but because it's much harder and more expensive to market a paid game. I don't have DLCs, cause all content is free for everyone, and forcing players to pay to play by putting content behind paywalls is not something I want to do, and also something the same Norwegian Consumer Council says should not be allowed in games.
> I sell bundles of in game currency. I don't allow users to select just how much they want to buy. I don't do this as part of an evil plan
So if I look at your in-game purchases, I’m going to find that they aren’t all priced to make the user buy the next-larger increment of currency… right?
Didn't I just say that it wasn't part of some evil plan? Prices of things have no relattion to that the different bundle sizes are. In-game prices are constant to ensure that people get what they pay for. The price in real money for the in-game currency is adjusted for inflation every now and then.
> As a game developer myself, I think young kids should not be able to make purchases on their own.
As a gamer, I don't think they should ever feel the need to purchase anything with real world money in a video game, even with a parent. Purchasing the game should be the last time a parent ever has to worry about spending actual money on it.
A one time payment for an ongoing service is not sustainable. Infrastructure and content isn't free, the same way you don't pay a one time payment for netflix.
> Bigger purchases give more, because the percentage lost to fees are lower.
So you sell $100 of in game currency for $85. It's all the same except 1 coin equals one cent when you buy it in the smallest bundle.
> I'd be a financial institution and break the rules of all major card networks.
It's measured in dollars but it is a gift card. It's not that serious.
> Bigger purchases give more, because the percentage lost to fees are lower. Tiny amount can not be bought, as it would not make sense considering the per transaction cost.
This is a solved issue in basically any real life commerce. (Depends on the country if it's enforced) You say what your transaction fee is and add it on top. Then people can decide for themselves.
It's not solved if you're not allowed to bill for fees seperatly. The end result is the same, so it's a dumb rule. It just makes it less clear what you're actually paying for.
I'm not sure the legislation is good, but I'm not sure I follow some arguments. FWIW the ideas you're referring to are these I think: https://www.forbrukerradet.no/report-on-virtual-currencies-i...
> Bigger purchases give more, because the percentage lost to fees are lower.
Encouraging bulk purchases seems like an orthogonal problem to allowing users to choose the amount. You could always allow users to choose the amount and just include the transaction fee.
> after the purchase is made, it's not real money, and if it were, I'd be a financial institution and break the rules of all major card networks
If card networks are operating in the country, they'd have to abide by the country's rules too.
But also, I don't think that's how it works. It says "Developers must be obligated to provide an equivalence in real currency clearly and transparently next to the premium virtual currency before each transaction." (translated to English, but) - IIUC this means that if you sell a skin for "10 coins" you have to show the cost in real world money at the same time, e.g. maybe $1.9 one day, maybe $2.2 another day, based on the cost to purchase said coins. Or you could change the skin price from 10 to 11 or whatever if you want to keep the real money cost the same. It's not forcing any financial changes on you, just making you display a number.
> You could always allow users to choose the amount and just include the transaction fee.
I'd be happy to do that, but it's not really as simple as it seems. Multiple of my payment providers have fees I'm not allowed to disclose, and the same Norwegian Consumer Council has also repeatedly stated that they do not want payment fees to be passed on to the consumer as that might be unfair to those who can't use specific payment options. They are passed on to the consumer either way, so... That's the only reason I don't provide tiny purchases, as the fees will result in negative value of the sale. But again, I'd be happy if I could just add fees to the price so that people could just buy exactly the amount they want.
> If card networks are operating in the country, they'd have to abide by the country's rules too. Yes, but currently the laws are not compatible. You can't follow one without breaking the other.
The problem isn't displaying a price, but how to do it in a way that makes sense. It doesn't really make anything more clear when it's called the same thing as the currency in game and has no fixed conversion because of fees making up a larger cut for small purchases. The Norwegian Consumer Council want's users to be able to buy the smalles unit of currency if thwy want, but that must be relatively very expensive because of the fees. They alsy want prices to reflect the most expensive method of acquisition of the currency. This will 100 % result in totally unrealistic prices, that are easy to confuse with the in game currency. It's clearly easier if you buy a fixed bundle of 1000 "gold coins" for $10, and the price is listed as "Buy a $500 paiting for 100 gold coins" instead of "Buy a $500 paiting for 100 gold coins($50 real money)".
I don't know from your gripes it sounds like it is the right approach to rein in the lawless world of in-game purchases.
I personally hate micro transactions and avoid games like these, especially mobile games, like the plague.
But we have to be honest here, these micro transactions are what consumers want. There is a reason that gatcha games (and paid mechanics of those games are implemented in the games mentioned in the article) are so successful and so popular. Consumers of mobile games, unlike consumers of PC games, enjoy these mechanics, gatcha games are going so far, that the core system of the game is not the gameplay (which is often disregarded as an automated activity), but rather the gatch mechanics.
Yes, these systems are stupid and insane. But they are giving consumers exactly what they want.
Consumers also want opioids and toxic childrens toys, among other harmful things.
An opioid addiction is no where close to dropping a hundred Euros a month on video games. I doubt that many people on here actually would want to ban adults from spending "too much" money on video games. And my comment is in response to the general sentiment that this represents some kind of "anti-consumer" behavior, when there is a large organic market for this and consumer actively want these features.
Personally I am very paternalistic and would support a total ban on these mechanics, together with legal limits of how much money people are allowed to spend on activities like these. Of course making any of these activities available to kids, should be banned as well. This is obviously an extremely unpopular position, since, as I said, consumers really enjoy these mechanics.
> I doubt that many people on here actually would want to ban adults from spending "too much" money on video games
The problem is not "spending too much" on videos games. It's the reward structure designed to incentivise one to spend unbounded amounts - just like a casino.
And just like a casino, I don't know that making them fully illegal is the correct way to go. But we surely shouldn't let kids in the casino, or let casinos advertise to kids, etc.
> Letting people just ruin their lives for whatever reason seems a pretty insane policy
We also have state-run lotteries, which are effectively a form of regressive taxation. Aligning regulations with well-being is an ongoing project
Yes it is, and we're not talking about a hundred euros. Some people waste their entire paychecks.
Can we agree to stop calling it anything but gambling? Because it's just gambling.
Also, the fact that it's called gotcha (got ya) has always had the hair up on the back of my neck.
It's not named "gatcha" or "gotcha". It's "gacha", derived from ガチャポン.
Like having your bookie in your contacts as 'the scammer'.
>Can we agree to stop calling it anything but gambling? Because it's just gambling.
No. It is not just "gambling" it is a very specific form of gambling, which is unlike most other forms of gambling. E.g. for most other gambling activities, the expectation is that the reward is monetary (see e.g. sports betting, roulette).
This should be clearly demarcated from micro transactions, where a predetermined reward is offered for a fixed amount of money. Lootboxes, where a digital reward (which may or may not be resellable) is given and gatcha mechanics, which are a very specific genre of gambling for digital rewards.
I see no reason why all of these should be treated the same.
>Also, the fact that it's called gotcha (got ya) has always had the hair up on the back of my neck.
Pure coincidence. The name comes from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gashapon