4 ms·

Of course the game makers aren't going to filter it, it makes them an "unwitting" benficiary of money laundering. It's not like their overt business purpose is

by Y_Y 8y ago

Of course the game makers aren't going to filter it, it makes them an "unwitting" benficiary of money laundering. It's not like their overt business purpose is any better.

__jal 8y ago
They may not have any natural incentive, but whoever processes their credit card transactions could certainly provide one.
- duxup 8y ago
  I worry that they don't really "care" either outside of a baseline of plausible deniability.
  - chatmasta 8y ago
    And why would they, if any fraud is insured? It’s priced into their business model. There are some interesting ethical debates to be had around stealing credit cards. At the end of the day, who is the thief really hurting? The consumer is inconvenienced at worst. The card companies are insured. The insurance companies already priced the risk into their actuarial models.
gruez 8y ago
AFAIK for card not present transactions, if a chargeback occurs, the merchant pays for the refund, plus a chargeback fee of ~$25. So unless the credit card victims are particularly clueless, this shouldn't be profitable for the merchant.
- olefoo 8y ago
  If you have access to access to victim credit card accounts you could probably datamine the least likely to notice accounts. CC used at a bar 5 nights a week? Charge on.
- bsder 8y ago
  I suspect that none of the Free To Play games ever get that kind of chargeback fee given the sheer volume of money they process. The credit card companies probably trip over themselves to give phenomenal offers to be the processor for them. In addition, who really cares about a chargeback for an online game? Since there is no physical thing that transacted, simply reversing the transaction is quite straightforward.
  - swish_bob 8y ago
    Chargeback fees are the card clearing services way of discouraging chargebacks/disputes. They charge everybody them. The large banks put way more money through them than you're talking about, and they have fairly high write-off levels just because it's not worth raising a dispute unless you're damn sure the other party will be hit with the costs. A significant amount of the time when you call your provider about a dispute (fraud or non-fraud), they will just pay out of their own pocket rather than raise it with Visa/Mastercard/whomever, it's just not worth the risk of being hit with the fees. (Unless they decide it's your fault, in which case they'll tell you to suck it up.) (I am a developer on the disputes platform for a major bank)
    - gruez 8y ago
      >A significant amount of the time when you call your provider about a dispute (fraud or non-fraud), they will just pay out of their own pocket rather than raise it with Visa/Mastercard/whomever Are you talking about when a customer calls their bank, or when a merchant calls their payment processor? I thought when a chargeback occurs, only the merchant side gets hit with fees?

by Y_Y 8y ago

Of course the game makers aren't going to filter it, it makes them an "unwitting" benficiary of money laundering. It's not like their overt business purpose is any better.

__jal 8y ago

They may not have any natural incentive, but whoever processes their credit card transactions could certainly provide one.

duxup 8y ago
I worry that they don't really "care" either outside of a baseline of plausible deniability.
- chatmasta 8y ago
  And why would they, if any fraud is insured? It’s priced into their business model. There are some interesting ethical debates to be had around stealing credit cards. At the end of the day, who is the thief really hurting? The consumer is inconvenienced at worst. The card companies are insured. The insurance companies already priced the risk into their actuarial models.

gruez 8y ago

AFAIK for card not present transactions, if a chargeback occurs, the merchant pays for the refund, plus a chargeback fee of ~$25. So unless the credit card victims are particularly clueless, this shouldn't be profitable for the merchant.

olefoo 8y ago
If you have access to access to victim credit card accounts you could probably datamine the least likely to notice accounts. CC used at a bar 5 nights a week? Charge on.
bsder 8y ago
I suspect that none of the Free To Play games ever get that kind of chargeback fee given the sheer volume of money they process. The credit card companies probably trip over themselves to give phenomenal offers to be the processor for them. In addition, who really cares about a chargeback for an online game? Since there is no physical thing that transacted, simply reversing the transaction is quite straightforward.
- swish_bob 8y ago
  Chargeback fees are the card clearing services way of discouraging chargebacks/disputes. They charge everybody them. The large banks put way more money through them than you're talking about, and they have fairly high write-off levels just because it's not worth raising a dispute unless you're damn sure the other party will be hit with the costs. A significant amount of the time when you call your provider about a dispute (fraud or non-fraud), they will just pay out of their own pocket rather than raise it with Visa/Mastercard/whomever, it's just not worth the risk of being hit with the fees. (Unless they decide it's your fault, in which case they'll tell you to suck it up.) (I am a developer on the disputes platform for a major bank)
  - gruez 8y ago
    >A significant amount of the time when you call your provider about a dispute (fraud or non-fraud), they will just pay out of their own pocket rather than raise it with Visa/Mastercard/whomever Are you talking about when a customer calls their bank, or when a merchant calls their payment processor? I thought when a chargeback occurs, only the merchant side gets hit with fees?