'My son spent £3,160 in one game'

Re:'My son spent £3,160 in one game' by blackhaz on Monday July 15, 2019 @05:35PM (#20445522)

How about a state regulation prohibiting stores to sell anything with real money procurement and trading mechanisms inside as games? Anything that allows in-app purchases or trade should be re-classified, a "trading platform," perhaps or, indeed, a casino? But then it would be up to society whether to allow their kids to play in a casino, or draw in a trading platform - where brushes have to be purchased. Squeeze those app business men a little bit. If Candy Crush allows to purchase in-game items, it's a freaking trading platform.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:'My son spent £3,160 in one game' by sidlls on Monday July 15, 2019 @06:45PM (#20446003)

Most of these apps exist because consumers expect them to be free and refuse to pay even a little bit up front. This "freemium casino" model of monetizing games and other apps arose out of the feedback loop that started with cheap consumer driven development.

The consumer is not always right....

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:'My son spent £3,160 in one game' by seventhtiger on Tuesday July 16, 2019 @01:50AM (#20447758)

This is because the platform holders have trained the customers to value the games at $0. Even a game with an equivalent experience to PC or console will feel much more expensive on mobile at the same price.

Apple and Google care about the attractiveness of the platform. They want you to buy the phone with the impression that apps are included for free.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:'My son spent £3,160 in one game' by codebje on Monday July 15, 2019 @08:53PM (#20446637)

There's an interesting duality in that. Companies are choosing to maximise profits by tapping into addiction and gambling, and consumers are choosing to accept and reward that.

I don't agree though that there's only up-front payment or freemium options on the table, nor do I agree that consumers wouldn't accept up-front payment if that was really on the table.

Consumers paid up front for games on the Gameboy and other handheld devices, and they paid enough to keep that industry alive right up until mobile games took over.

Any expectations consumers have right now that mobile games should be free is on the publishers, not the consumers - and while consumers are enabling and supporting the freemium casino model, I don't think that us humans in aggregate have as much freedom of choice as we like to believe.

Regulation is the only way out of this bind, but with the continued rise of neoliberalism that's just not going to happen.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:'My son spent £3,160 in one game' by plankers on Monday July 15, 2019 @11:43PM (#20447304)

Is the consumer expectation that mobile games be free on the publishers if they're responding to market conditions created by those same consumer expectations?

Seems to me like a chicken and egg problem where the entrenched nature of freemium games create a consumer expectation that games should be free up-front, causing consumers to avoid up-front payment, which causes up-front payment models to be less successful, which further entrenches the freemium game model, etc.

I agree with you on principle that it's up to publishers to make the effort to change this model, but I don't see how that could happen without some external nudging to overcome the market forces at work.

[ Parent | on HN ]