5 ms·

The solution for this would be to change the purchase approval model where you have to enter your password to purchase anything. You can have to options: 1) aut

by x0054 13y ago

The solution for this would be to change the purchase approval model where you have to enter your password to purchase anything. You can have to options: 1) authorize until closed, or 2) authorize just this purchase. This way kids could not run up charges using iAP. However, if you an adult, and you have purchased $100s of iAP, and now you feel bad about it, I have 0 sympathy for you. Overall, this is just EU being EU, nothing surprising.

eropple 13y ago
> However, if you an adult, and you have purchased $100s of iAP, and now you feel bad about it, I have 0 sympathy for you. So you understand that companies like King design their "free" games to be next-to-impossible if you don't give them money, while employing teams of psychologists to determine the best way to subvert your will through forced failure while simultaneously driving manipulative CTAs at you while you are at your (carefully cultivated) most vulnerable? And, understanding that and with that first and foremost in your mind, you have no sympathy for the people who end up on the business end of that psychological weapon? Because I certainly do. There are economies of scale to the practice of subverting people's will and in this war one side's got all the guns. These games are designed--designed--to hit the same triggers as a fucking gambling addiction, man. I am so very not OK with abandoning those wired less effectively against it. (And as I get older I can see how insidious and easy it is for this shit to worm into me when I never would have noticed it, or thought it possible, a decade ago.)
- baddox 13y ago
  How do you draw a line between deliberately designing a game to be enjoyable and have hooks in order to earn revenue, and "exploiting/subverting/forcing" them? You seem to be making a distinction between people who pay money for "legitimate" enjoyment, and people who spend money for what they think is legitimate enjoyment but is actually just a trick. I'm not convinced this is a meaningful dichotomy, and I've never heard anyone even try to explain what the difference is. I'm not a big fan of strict normative statements about where I can or can't spend my money on entertainment.
- r00fus 13y ago
  King is like Zynga - eventually, their whales will migrate or die off and the company prospectus for investors will be weak or damaged. Not that I don't think Apple should take a step to call out their "free" games that happen to rake in tons of cash - when their top grossing list has mostly "free" games, that's a big sign that "free ain't free". Many good games have reasonable iAP (e.g.: Carcassonne, Ascension). As soon as I see any tokens, I don't buy it.
- joesb 13y ago
  Many of old console game are well-known for being next-to-impossible to beat but people have no problem with it; see those Ninja Toad game or Circus game from SNES day. Unless the game is theorically impossible to beat, then you are a sucker for wanting to use money to substitute for your practice. Seriously, you are the one paying money just so you can show off to your friend that you beat the same level other spends weeks to beat, and then the company offering IAP is the douche one?
zobzu 13y ago
EU doesn't care about capitalism as much as the USA and the like-minded. It cares about setting proper expectations: you're going to have to pay to finish the game/really use the app. I think that's not a bad idea to mark it clearly as such.

by x0054 13y ago

eropple 13y ago

> However, if you an adult, and you have purchased $100s of iAP, and now you feel bad about it, I have 0 sympathy for you. So you understand that companies like King design their "free" games to be next-to-impossible if you don't give them money, while employing teams of psychologists to determine the best way to subvert your will through forced failure while simultaneously driving manipulative CTAs at you while you are at your (carefully cultivated) most vulnerable? And, understanding that and with that first and foremost in your mind, you have no sympathy for the people who end up on the business end of that psychological weapon? Because I certainly do. There are economies of scale to the practice of subverting people's will and in this war one side's got all the guns. These games are designed--designed--to hit the same triggers as a fucking gambling addiction, man. I am so very not OK with abandoning those wired less effectively against it. (And as I get older I can see how insidious and easy it is for this shit to worm into me when I never would have noticed it, or thought it possible, a decade ago.)

baddox 13y ago
How do you draw a line between deliberately designing a game to be enjoyable and have hooks in order to earn revenue, and "exploiting/subverting/forcing" them? You seem to be making a distinction between people who pay money for "legitimate" enjoyment, and people who spend money for what they think is legitimate enjoyment but is actually just a trick. I'm not convinced this is a meaningful dichotomy, and I've never heard anyone even try to explain what the difference is. I'm not a big fan of strict normative statements about where I can or can't spend my money on entertainment.
r00fus 13y ago
King is like Zynga - eventually, their whales will migrate or die off and the company prospectus for investors will be weak or damaged. Not that I don't think Apple should take a step to call out their "free" games that happen to rake in tons of cash - when their top grossing list has mostly "free" games, that's a big sign that "free ain't free". Many good games have reasonable iAP (e.g.: Carcassonne, Ascension). As soon as I see any tokens, I don't buy it.
joesb 13y ago
Many of old console game are well-known for being next-to-impossible to beat but people have no problem with it; see those Ninja Toad game or Circus game from SNES day. Unless the game is theorically impossible to beat, then you are a sucker for wanting to use money to substitute for your practice. Seriously, you are the one paying money just so you can show off to your friend that you beat the same level other spends weeks to beat, and then the company offering IAP is the douche one?

zobzu 13y ago

EU doesn't care about capitalism as much as the USA and the like-minded. It cares about setting proper expectations: you're going to have to pay to finish the game/really use the app. I think that's not a bad idea to mark it clearly as such.