4 ms·

These complaints remind me of complaints I've heard about "day one" DLC (DownLoadable Content) in video games. For those unfamiliar, it's content which is avail

These complaints remind me of complaints I've heard about "day one" DLC (DownLoadable Content) in video games. For those unfamiliar, it's content which is available in the game upon its release but you have to pay extra for it. Sometimes, players are given the option to buy the Ultra Digital Deluxe Collector's Edition which comes with the DLC and "exclusive" shit (and also costs extra). If it's not rent seeking, it's drip pricing, it's added-on sales tax, it's $0.99 instead of $1[0], it's the Ultra Digital Deluxe Collector's Edition. I would always advocate: don't give them your business. I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir here. I know it's a lot easier said than done to avoid such ploys. Still, that is the strongest personal option. Avoid them like the plague and tell your friends and family why. If a business' current practices seem better than you remember, hold on to the memory; make them work to prove any marketed change of heart. (It may be hazardous to my health to hold my breath waiting for the $0.99 shit to stop.) [0] There was a card shop (games shop, comic book store, that sort of thing) I went to as a kid. They priced stuff like $5 and it was actually $5 when I went to pay. 12-year-old me "didn't even know that was legal".

jrockway 4y ago
Isn't this all the same thing as what airlines did after 9/11? You pay the fare and get a seat. Want it to not be a middle seat? That's $50. Want to carry on a bag? That's $50. Want to check a bag? That's $50. Want to check out the lounge before you depart? That's $50. Want some WiFi? That's $50. Want a snack? That's $50. Now your flight is $200 more than the quoted fare. (OK OK you can probably get WiFi and a snack for less than $50.) Everyone seems to love this, or at least, they didn't stop flying. So why would any rational company not try to use this business model? Your AAA game gets to be $59.99 + $0.99 download, and your competitor's game is $60.00. Sort by price ascending makes you the top result, but you actually get $0.99 more money with each copy sold. You are right that legislation is the only answer to curb this abuse. Consumers fall for it hook/line/sinker. Companies can't resist free money.
- electriclove 4y ago
  People don’t love that about the airlines. People hate it.
  - gffrd 4y ago
    … but they like saving money more than they hate it.
- lp0_on_fire 4y ago
  I don’t think that people -_love it_ or _fall for it_ per se. rather, people don’t have much of a choice but to accept it unless they can afford to fly private. You can’t really fly and not take luggage with you, for example.
- crooked-v 4y ago
  > Now your flight is $200 more than the quoted fare. > Everyone seems to love this, or at least, they didn't stop flying. Nobody "loves" it. They just have to put up with it because even for people who know what they're doing with flight searches, the only way to dig into all that dark pattern shit is to have fifty browser tabs open comparing the fine details of different flights. If it was possible to, say, compare all those up-charges up front using flight search tools, I'm sure you'd see a lot more people choosing the slightly more expensive tickets.
  - Plasmoid 4y ago
    Google flights will let you input the number of bags you are checking/carrying on to produce a "final" price.
    - crooked-v 4y ago
      That still leaves out leg room, meal service, lounge access, and all the other things that somebody might want.
  - ido 4y ago
    I mean, you do get to know airlines by reputation - generally speaking I expect Ryanair to do all the bullshit dark pattern nickel and diming and not expect it from national airlines like Lufthansa.
    - Kirby64 4y ago
      I think overall you overestimate the amount most people fly. Generally, many people fly very little or almost never. Sure, there's world travelers that know who are bad airlines, but knowing the 'secrets' to not having a bad flight is assuming a lot of the average occasional flight consumer.
      - dsr_ 4y ago
        And the people who fly a lot? Almost all of them are flying on business, on somebody else's money. Which is also why the hotel where people stay when they're visiting friends has free wifi, and the hotel next to the convention center does not.
- alexb_ 4y ago
  ...Are you of the impression that people like this? People hate it. It's like, the one thing everyone complains about all the time when flying. How did you get to the conclusion that people like this about flights
  - jrockway 4y ago
    Actions speak louder than words. People say they hate it. But they aren't upgrading to all-inclusive first class or full-fare economy tickets. They happily buy the cheapest flight, whine, and then do it all against the next time they take a vacation. To some extent, this is quite rational. You're in pain for like 2 hours because the seat pitch is now 4 inches. But then you get off the flight and never think about it again. The fact that flights include things that people don't need to have just made air travel more accessible, though less fun.
    - Entinel 4y ago
      Have you considered that most people can't afford to upgrade to first class? The choice is either deal with the shit seat or not go on vacation.
      - jrockway 4y ago
        Of course. It being cheaper is why people like it. Same reason that games are free and offer DLC, or Mercedes offers a car that could go faster if you have extra money laying around this month. I hate the nickel and diming but it does make things more accessible in general.
        bick_nyers 4y ago
        It would maybe make things more accessible if there were caps on corporate profits. As it stands, corporations have 0 obligation to pass those savings on to consumers.
        SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
        A $60/month difference is not what's going to make or break someone buying a Mercedes. Flying economy is cheap enough that many people can do it, there is no right Mercedes subscription model that will get people into one of their cars.
- WillPostForFood 4y ago
  You are right that legislation is the only answer to curb this abuse. Perhaps! But a big part of the problem is airlines have near monopolies on domestic routes. I want to fly non-stop to Charlotte, my only choice is American, I want to fly to Atlanta, my only choice is Delta, for the same price as a flight to Europe. Some monopoly enforcement, or laws requiring more airport diversity might fix this without micromanaging prices or services.
- mikestew 4y ago
  Everyone seems to love this, or at least, they didn't stop flying. “Complains about air pollution, but still breathes the air”, amirite? Or perhaps there’s another explanation for the dynamic. Because I can tell you that my game-buying habits have changed as a result of your parallel example.
- pmontra 4y ago
  People pay the fare and usually don't buy any extra. And the plane doesn't go any faster if all passengers paid an hypothetical Speed Improvement.
- smeej 4y ago
  There's a big difference between something you rent and something you own. You rent seats on planes. Some seats are more desirable than others, so you pay more to rent those. You rent access to their storage space. You rent access to their services. The seat doesn't come with food, so if you want the food they have on the plane, you buy that from them. If you don't, someone on the next flight will. When you buy a car, ostensibly you own the car. It's your property. A company should not be able to disable features unless you pay them not to, indefinitely, on something you own.
- dreamcompiler 4y ago
  The key here is that because the US government's antitrust division has been sitting on its hands for 40 years, there are now only 4 airlines in the US. This lack of competition means that all 4 can play this game (except Southwest, which has other problems) because there's not enough competition to stop it. But there are more than 4 car companies. There's enough competition to stop this kind of horseshit, which is a fact Mary Barra seems not to recognize.
burnished 4y ago
Seeing this as a problem with personal responsibility misses that the problem is structural. Culture as expressed through individual choices works great for many situations, but it does not fix broken dynamics. Besides, if you want to apply that axe put it against the people making those decisions to conduct business in that fashion. If your first thought is that it doesn't make sense to because then that person will be outcompeted then consider that it makes even less sense to hold people with zero agency in that decision responsible.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
  I don’t feel personally responsible but recognize that I can take actions to avoid these things, at least in some cases. If I ever found a store (literally any kind) today that didn’t price almost everything at $X.99 they would have all of my business which they could support. However, I recognize that I’m just one person and ultimately these decisions primarily benefit me. That’s also why I advocate for it; the behavior can benefit those close to me if they happen to agree. Indeed it is a systemic issue and I don’t claim to have a systemic solution. Even the personal solution is pretty shaky, considering the ubiquity of these practices. Oh well, it’s better than giving in.
  - burnished 4y ago
    I think I read more into your post than intended, specifically your suggestion to vote with your wallet. It is frequently stated in such a way as to be the end of the conversation - shut up and change your purchasing habits, essentially. You didnt put it that way, my bad.
mattnewton 4y ago
The problem is that capital intensive industries like car manufacturing (or airlines as was mentioned elsewhere in this thread) tend to have low margins, high volume and high barrier to new entrants. This means unless you can convince a lot of the volume to boycott with you, minority purchasing decisions of people doing the math and taking a principled stance can’t really affect the behavior of the incumbents or attract new players. Then your choices quickly turn into not using the good or service _at all_ or engaging with the pricing scheme you find abhorrent.
kelnos 4y ago
No, it's absolutely rent-seeking in the Mercedes case. Your DLC analogy doesn't hold water: when you buy the game, you are paying for the core game. The DLC costs time, money, and resources for the game studio to produce, and you're buying that separately. In the Mercedes case, they ship the car with the more-powerful motor already installed in it. The cost of it has been paid already. They just artificially limit it through software unless you pay extra for it. At least in this case Mercedes is offering a one-time flat fee, which would at least be somewhat sorta vaguely like paying extra at the time of sale for a more-powerful engine rather than whatever is stock. Still kinda slimy, but at least not absolute highway robbery, like the subscription plan is.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
  I think you might want to give my comment another read. It doesn’t seem we disagree as much as you believe.

jrockway 4y ago

Isn't this all the same thing as what airlines did after 9/11? You pay the fare and get a seat. Want it to not be a middle seat? That's $50. Want to carry on a bag? That's $50. Want to check a bag? That's $50. Want to check out the lounge before you depart? That's $50. Want some WiFi? That's $50. Want a snack? That's $50. Now your flight is $200 more than the quoted fare. (OK OK you can probably get WiFi and a snack for less than $50.) Everyone seems to love this, or at least, they didn't stop flying. So why would any rational company not try to use this business model? Your AAA game gets to be $59.99 + $0.99 download, and your competitor's game is $60.00. Sort by price ascending makes you the top result, but you actually get $0.99 more money with each copy sold. You are right that legislation is the only answer to curb this abuse. Consumers fall for it hook/line/sinker. Companies can't resist free money.

electriclove 4y ago
People don’t love that about the airlines. People hate it.
- gffrd 4y ago
  … but they like saving money more than they hate it.
lp0_on_fire 4y ago
I don’t think that people -_love it_ or _fall for it_ per se. rather, people don’t have much of a choice but to accept it unless they can afford to fly private. You can’t really fly and not take luggage with you, for example.
crooked-v 4y ago
> Now your flight is $200 more than the quoted fare. > Everyone seems to love this, or at least, they didn't stop flying. Nobody "loves" it. They just have to put up with it because even for people who know what they're doing with flight searches, the only way to dig into all that dark pattern shit is to have fifty browser tabs open comparing the fine details of different flights. If it was possible to, say, compare all those up-charges up front using flight search tools, I'm sure you'd see a lot more people choosing the slightly more expensive tickets.
- Plasmoid 4y ago
  Google flights will let you input the number of bags you are checking/carrying on to produce a "final" price.
  - crooked-v 4y ago
    That still leaves out leg room, meal service, lounge access, and all the other things that somebody might want.
- ido 4y ago
  I mean, you do get to know airlines by reputation - generally speaking I expect Ryanair to do all the bullshit dark pattern nickel and diming and not expect it from national airlines like Lufthansa.
  - Kirby64 4y ago
    I think overall you overestimate the amount most people fly. Generally, many people fly very little or almost never. Sure, there's world travelers that know who are bad airlines, but knowing the 'secrets' to not having a bad flight is assuming a lot of the average occasional flight consumer.
    - dsr_ 4y ago
      And the people who fly a lot? Almost all of them are flying on business, on somebody else's money. Which is also why the hotel where people stay when they're visiting friends has free wifi, and the hotel next to the convention center does not.
alexb_ 4y ago
...Are you of the impression that people like this? People hate it. It's like, the one thing everyone complains about all the time when flying. How did you get to the conclusion that people like this about flights
- jrockway 4y ago
  Actions speak louder than words. People say they hate it. But they aren't upgrading to all-inclusive first class or full-fare economy tickets. They happily buy the cheapest flight, whine, and then do it all against the next time they take a vacation. To some extent, this is quite rational. You're in pain for like 2 hours because the seat pitch is now 4 inches. But then you get off the flight and never think about it again. The fact that flights include things that people don't need to have just made air travel more accessible, though less fun.
  - Entinel 4y ago
    Have you considered that most people can't afford to upgrade to first class? The choice is either deal with the shit seat or not go on vacation.
    - jrockway 4y ago
      Of course. It being cheaper is why people like it. Same reason that games are free and offer DLC, or Mercedes offers a car that could go faster if you have extra money laying around this month. I hate the nickel and diming but it does make things more accessible in general.
      - bick_nyers 4y ago
        It would maybe make things more accessible if there were caps on corporate profits. As it stands, corporations have 0 obligation to pass those savings on to consumers.
      - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
        A $60/month difference is not what's going to make or break someone buying a Mercedes. Flying economy is cheap enough that many people can do it, there is no right Mercedes subscription model that will get people into one of their cars.
WillPostForFood 4y ago
You are right that legislation is the only answer to curb this abuse. Perhaps! But a big part of the problem is airlines have near monopolies on domestic routes. I want to fly non-stop to Charlotte, my only choice is American, I want to fly to Atlanta, my only choice is Delta, for the same price as a flight to Europe. Some monopoly enforcement, or laws requiring more airport diversity might fix this without micromanaging prices or services.
mikestew 4y ago
Everyone seems to love this, or at least, they didn't stop flying. “Complains about air pollution, but still breathes the air”, amirite? Or perhaps there’s another explanation for the dynamic. Because I can tell you that my game-buying habits have changed as a result of your parallel example.
pmontra 4y ago
People pay the fare and usually don't buy any extra. And the plane doesn't go any faster if all passengers paid an hypothetical Speed Improvement.
smeej 4y ago
There's a big difference between something you rent and something you own. You rent seats on planes. Some seats are more desirable than others, so you pay more to rent those. You rent access to their storage space. You rent access to their services. The seat doesn't come with food, so if you want the food they have on the plane, you buy that from them. If you don't, someone on the next flight will. When you buy a car, ostensibly you own the car. It's your property. A company should not be able to disable features unless you pay them not to, indefinitely, on something you own.
dreamcompiler 4y ago
The key here is that because the US government's antitrust division has been sitting on its hands for 40 years, there are now only 4 airlines in the US. This lack of competition means that all 4 can play this game (except Southwest, which has other problems) because there's not enough competition to stop it. But there are more than 4 car companies. There's enough competition to stop this kind of horseshit, which is a fact Mary Barra seems not to recognize.

burnished 4y ago

Seeing this as a problem with personal responsibility misses that the problem is structural. Culture as expressed through individual choices works great for many situations, but it does not fix broken dynamics. Besides, if you want to apply that axe put it against the people making those decisions to conduct business in that fashion. If your first thought is that it doesn't make sense to because then that person will be outcompeted then consider that it makes even less sense to hold people with zero agency in that decision responsible.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
I don’t feel personally responsible but recognize that I can take actions to avoid these things, at least in some cases. If I ever found a store (literally any kind) today that didn’t price almost everything at $X.99 they would have all of my business which they could support. However, I recognize that I’m just one person and ultimately these decisions primarily benefit me. That’s also why I advocate for it; the behavior can benefit those close to me if they happen to agree. Indeed it is a systemic issue and I don’t claim to have a systemic solution. Even the personal solution is pretty shaky, considering the ubiquity of these practices. Oh well, it’s better than giving in.
- burnished 4y ago
  I think I read more into your post than intended, specifically your suggestion to vote with your wallet. It is frequently stated in such a way as to be the end of the conversation - shut up and change your purchasing habits, essentially. You didnt put it that way, my bad.

mattnewton 4y ago

The problem is that capital intensive industries like car manufacturing (or airlines as was mentioned elsewhere in this thread) tend to have low margins, high volume and high barrier to new entrants. This means unless you can convince a lot of the volume to boycott with you, minority purchasing decisions of people doing the math and taking a principled stance can’t really affect the behavior of the incumbents or attract new players. Then your choices quickly turn into not using the good or service _at all_ or engaging with the pricing scheme you find abhorrent.

kelnos 4y ago

No, it's absolutely rent-seeking in the Mercedes case. Your DLC analogy doesn't hold water: when you buy the game, you are paying for the core game. The DLC costs time, money, and resources for the game studio to produce, and you're buying that separately. In the Mercedes case, they ship the car with the more-powerful motor already installed in it. The cost of it has been paid already. They just artificially limit it through software unless you pay extra for it. At least in this case Mercedes is offering a one-time flat fee, which would at least be somewhat sorta vaguely like paying extra at the time of sale for a more-powerful engine rather than whatever is stock. Still kinda slimy, but at least not absolute highway robbery, like the subscription plan is.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
I think you might want to give my comment another read. It doesn’t seem we disagree as much as you believe.