Good but not enough if it doesn't target social casinos. I was shocked to learn that people pay for fake money to spend in virtual slot machines. You win fake money that you can't cash out. That is 0 RTP while realm money casinos must have over 90% - and they're still cashing in insane money.
batch12 122 days ago [-]
Not that I like these casinos, but what you are describing sounds like the definition of a video game.
tialaramex 122 days ago [-]
That's an important consideration when deciding how to write regulations.
This is probably similar to alcohol regulations. It's not illegal to sell booze to say, a 35 year old housewife in a lot of places. But when she's too drunk to remember her own name often now it's illegal to sell her more booze. Lots of people enjoy booze, what she's doing is no longer enjoying booze. She's got a problem and so we decide it's illegal to make that problem worse.
As with booze, for some people these things have no pull. I feel no desire to drink booze, and I also feel no desire to buy video game coins. But that's fine, the regulations aren't about me. Regulations protect the vulnerable.
batch12 121 days ago [-]
What would a regulation look like here? Just a ban of casino style games?
It'd be cool if a nonprofit free to play alternative was set up to cut into some of the damage these do.
tialaramex 121 days ago [-]
For example if your customers are spending more than a certain amount you need to show that you understood what they could afford to be spending and weren't allowing this to become a problem.
You can choose then, the simple option is our customers can't spend enough to go over that line, the potentially more lucrative but difficult option is check on your "whales" and only allow those who match affordability criteria.
Lev1a 122 days ago [-]
The problem is those "games" are still praying on people with addiction issues even if they have no payout.
Fire-Dragon-DoL 121 days ago [-]
As far as I'm aware, the addiction is on gambling. If there is no money return, there is literally no gambling occurring.
I'm strongly against lootboxes and very concerned about videogames that are effectively casinos, but what the op described is just a videogame
Ekaros 121 days ago [-]
I am not against gambling. I enjoy it myself on occasion, and I would not ban it. But still idea of gambling for money without chance to win money back... That just feels next step exploitation.
I do understand the dopamine process of demo games on casino sites, but still. Allowing people to pay for that...
Fire-Dragon-DoL 115 days ago [-]
From my understanding, the part that triggers the addiction is the possibility of winning money, so removing that seems to remove entirely the incentive.
Dalewyn 122 days ago [-]
I think this is a good thing in principle because there is no way pricing transparency is ever a bad thing.
But I think this will inadvertantly lead to an overall increase in prices, probably not intended by the people pursuing this.
Why? Because most of these in-game currencies are sold in packs of varying sizes and the larger packs are usually cheaper per-currency than smaller packs. A volume discount.
Selling the currency like this means the euro value of a single unit of currency is variable, which obviously cannot be reconciled with a requirement to peg a specific euro price onto the actual goods thereof.
So assuming this action is successful, we'll probably see an end to the volume discount with large packs becoming sold at the same euro-per-currency pricing as small packs, and a currency-to-euro conversion printed on the actual goods next to the price in currency.
ZachSaucier 122 days ago [-]
Most all "real-world" stores offer discounts for buying more things at once. Just think of all of the "buy 2 get the 3rd free" etc. deals. Changing the currency from virtual to "real" does nothing to change that.
Showing the "real" cost should DECREASE the cost because when people see it in terms that they use day to day it feels like it's more expensive, so they are more likely to spend less. This would decrease profits for these video games.
The more likely unintended, if you can call it that, outcome would be that less games are solely free to play, relying exclusively on in-game cosmetic transactions.
Ferret7446 122 days ago [-]
As I understand it, in-game currencies were invented to work around various laws around monetization, especially in Japan.
I'm quite confident that whatever legislation they pass will only motivate other workarounds that make the problem worse for everyone involved.
Except the politicians, of course (do they count as people?).
Dalewyn 122 days ago [-]
There are some practical benefits to doing things this way, for both the game and the players.
Namely in that the in-game currency, not ackshually being real money, can be provided as rewards during normal gameplay and distributed by the devs during events, campaigns and promotions, or for compensation ("apologems") without complicated bureaucratic tax work for both devs and players.
I also think it's just tacky seeing actual dollar/yen/pound/euro signs flying around when you're trying to just enjoy yourself, which an in-game currency nicely avoids.
None of this to say the pricing being opaque isn't a problem of course, because it is and I reiterate that I agree with the legal action here in the interests of consumers.
MisterBastahrd 122 days ago [-]
There's already price inflation.
Let's do a 1 cent to 1 Bullshit Buck scenario.
You want to buy that sweet thing that costs 1600 Bullshit Bucks? Too bad, you can only buy 2000 Bullshit Bucks at a time. Now you have 400 Bullshit Bucks that you can't do anything with, because nothing in the game store is that cheap. So you either have to buy MORE currency and hope that you can purchase something that will even things out, or you basically just handed the company $4.
Dalewyn 122 days ago [-]
As a whale who buys probably far too much in Fate/Grand Order, Princess Connect! Re:Dive, and Fire Emblem Heroes I just write it off as a discount for future me because I'll just buy more later anyway. :V
122 days ago [-]
eska 122 days ago [-]
I say this with love, but that sounds like addiction and I hope you will seek out therapy in the future, or at least consider resources such as healthygamer_gg
Dalewyn 122 days ago [-]
I keep a journal of my spending there since I know it can be addicting. I usually spend somewhere in the neighbourhood of $2000~$2500 annually on them overall, which sounds like a lot but actually isn't when averaged out. As hobbies go I feel it's on the cheap side; I spend more just on groceries and gas each month.
The spending comes strictly from my entertainment budget, for obvious reasons.
The "leftovers" from my purchases truly don't bother me since I'll use them later anyway as I buy more.
immibis 122 days ago [-]
ok but that whole amount of money is a scam you're paying to scammers
Dalewyn 121 days ago [-]
A scam implies an element of deception and malice, which is not the case.
The games are clear in what they sell (particularly Fire Emblem Heroes after they got burned once by the players). I am acutely aware what I am buying, and what I can get with them. I am happy with the experience the games provide me as a whole, else I wouldn't be playing them for the better part of a decade straight and paying them my money.
So no, the games I cited aren't scammers. You are welcome to not like the business model, but calling them scammers is unwarranted.
bmicraft 122 days ago [-]
"We shouldn't regulate something bad because it could get worse" is such an American take, I have a hard time even responding. You wouldn't usually think like that in any other scenario except in politics. Of course something should be done about a predatory industry, that mainly relies on very few people with highly addictive personality/circumstances.
If there are any loopholes left they can be closed next year, but effectively playing with money should be treated like gambling is. Because that's exactly what it is.
Aerroon 122 days ago [-]
"We should regulate it because I dislike it" is such a European take. And I say this as a European. No wonder our economies are stagnating.
I like F2P games. I know it's hard for someone born rich to understand this, but not everyone could afford something like World of Warcraft's $60 buy-in price with a $15 monthly subscription fee.
bmicraft 119 days ago [-]
You can argue whether gambling should be allowed, restricted of banned altogether, but you'll have a hard time convincing me that this isn't (ab)using the same weaknesses in our brains.
> not everyone could afford something like World of Warcraft's $60 buy-in price with a $15 monthly subscription
There are plenty of much cheaper and even free games that aren't employing these abusive psychological tactics. In fact they've pretty much always been there, in contrast to this newer development of microtransaction over the last 10 years.
Dalewyn 122 days ago [-]
I did not say this should not be done, actually I said the opposite but also that the law of unintended consequences should be respected.
bmicraft 122 days ago [-]
Okay to be fair I can see how you could read it that way, but it isn't very obvious to me even now.
pzmarzly 122 days ago [-]
Will they go after Valve? Steam Wallet and Steam Community Market have many traits of IGCs (non-refundable, minimum top-up amounts, can be "earned" and traded).
I like using Steam Wallet,
and got many "free" games thanks to selling items on Community Market, but all of this always seemed like some grey area. In fact, even Steam Subscriber Agreement seems to contradict itself on the matter (it claims that Steam funds have no value, but later says that an user is responsible for any income taxes on Steam funds acquired on Community Market).
Ekaros 121 days ago [-]
Very likely not. Only issue with Valve system is that consumer cannot get back their credit. Otherwise while their transaction taxes might be high everything is clearly marked in local currency. You know exactly how much real currency you are paying and there is 1:1 mapping between various payment methods and to in game currency.
There is no fake currency you can buy in varying sized bundles with opaque deals or discounts for larger purchases.
122 days ago [-]
tgv 122 days ago [-]
Good start, but too mild for my taste. Aren't there laws against overpricing/price gouging? The price of in-game purchases quite often bears no relation to the cost of production.
cube2222 122 days ago [-]
What does overpricing mean? That sounds a bit like wanting to forbid having profits (what level of relation is allowed, when is it not).
With most games with in-game currencies it’s free to play with paid cosmetics. Both the game’s price bears no relation to the production (it’s free) nor the skins’ (as they are subsidizing the free game).
I think that model is actually quite excellent (allowing people without money to still enjoy the game, while giving something to those who are happy to throw money at it, everybody being able to easily play with each other).
I am totally in favor of getting rid of in-game currencies, though. If anything, it should be like in steam, where you have an in-app wallet with a balance in your local currency.
Ferret7446 122 days ago [-]
I wasn't aware of any laws that required products or services to be priced based on the cost of production, especially for luxury goods such as entertainment.
allendoerfer 122 days ago [-]
In Germany there is § 138 BGB [0], forbidding a "conspicious misproportion" of price and service. I assume other countries must have similar laws.
This law is more so for cases where a standard price exists
_trampeltier 122 days ago [-]
I guess most countrys have something like this. Just is there any case, where a judgment was ruled on this anywhere?
sandworm101 122 days ago [-]
Where such laws exist they are to prevent abuse in one-sided transactions such as a power company jacking up prices over christmas when there is nobody in the office to process service cancelations, or a cellphone company charging triple during a hurricane evac when everyone is on the move. I cannot see how a video game would rise to that level. One can always just play a different game.
doctorpangloss 122 days ago [-]
What do you do for a living?
MisterBastahrd 122 days ago [-]
Good. There shouldn't BE such a thing as in game currency. At least not any currency that can be purchased with money. Especially when companies will always set the price of an item to be less than the cost to purchase the currency, meaning that in order to use the full amount, you need to buy MORE currency and an additional item.
seydor 122 days ago [-]
There shouldn't be any currency except the us dollar because tourists get scammed.
beardyw 122 days ago [-]
Is that supposed to be anywhere in the world?
ZachSaucier 122 days ago [-]
I think you missed the joke
beardyw 121 days ago [-]
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
markus_zhang 122 days ago [-]
In game currency of F2P games is part of the nasty financial scheme. Game economists are half-assed amateur central bankers with the sole mind to farm more $$$ from the players. We should just plain ban in-game currencies.
immibis 122 days ago [-]
So a mithril longsword will have to be bought using real money or not at all.
markus_zhang 122 days ago [-]
It can be incorporated in the initial price. I hope to remove F2P games altogether. They are really cancerous.
immibis 121 days ago [-]
So the price of the game includes the real world price of buying a mithril longsword, and you can't slay goblins to get gold pieces to buy one in the game.
markus_zhang 120 days ago [-]
Sorry I don't really get what you are talking about. They can just sell like ordinary PC games. Yeah, they can price really high if they so wish, but it's going to impact the sales.
immibis 120 days ago [-]
Mithril longswords should be priced like PC games? I don't follow.
In a normal game you'd kill orcs, pick up some stuff from each dead orc, sell the stuff to a merchant, and buy stuff you want from a different merchant. You're suggesting that should be illegal, so you should have to just... already start with all the equipment you'd ever want?
markus_zhang 120 days ago [-]
I don't follow you, please core dump you CPU first.
ChrisArchitect 121 days ago [-]
Some more discussion earlier:
Videogame firms hit with EU complaint over 'tricking consumers'
> Average spent per month (amongst all parents of children who spend in-game items)
According to the same source, 18% spend, 76% don't, and 7% are unknown. So excluding the unknowns, that's an average of 7.5€ per month.
122 days ago [-]
skrebbel 122 days ago [-]
Yeah that data seems super cooked, right? My kids have 1 or 2 classmates who are allowed to do in-game purchases and that's like a few euros here and there, like after they got some birthday money.
rightbyte 122 days ago [-]
Certainly well into 'this can't be right' territory.
Are in game purchases used for money loundering? Like, if you own half the stock in a company you can get a pretty good money cleaning rate.
_trampeltier 122 days ago [-]
I was just shocked when I saw how much more people spend the last few years on gaming. It's exponential and most new money comes from in-game.
But the 39€ must be bs. I think just a really few children have so much money left just for in-game.
It's also a well known fact in such ecosystems, the big part of the money comes from a small part of (addicted) people.
doctorpangloss 122 days ago [-]
> It's also a well known fact in such ecosystems, the big part of the money comes from a small part of (addicted) people.
How would you know?
What if they’re rich? Then they have a lot of money and time.
Can someone be addicted to golf? Anyway, why are rich people obligated to spend their money and time in a balanced, well rounded way anyway?
122 days ago [-]
Eumenes 122 days ago [-]
A non-issue for bureaucratic busybodies. Spending real money on fake digital things already puts you into the category of dumb and/or feeble minded so I have little sympathy. And before anyone says "the children", its really their absent parents providing the funds. If my kid ran off with my money, I wouldn't go to the government to prevent it. If the government is going to pursue consumer protection initiatives for in-game/digital spending, are they going to police in-game/digital trades or commerce too? Will they employ in-game customs officials for WoW or CS skins?
Hikikomori 122 days ago [-]
If your dumb enough to drink/eat the poison companies put in food you deserve it, no need for any regulations.
Eumenes 122 days ago [-]
Ah yes, comparing food regulation to ... providing "price transparency" to fake hats in a fake video game.
orwin 121 days ago [-]
Honestly, if you don't grow part of your food don't know the farmer who sell you the rest it's on you. I don't have any empathy for people who don't care about what they put in their plate.
Rendered at 05:18:58 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
This is probably similar to alcohol regulations. It's not illegal to sell booze to say, a 35 year old housewife in a lot of places. But when she's too drunk to remember her own name often now it's illegal to sell her more booze. Lots of people enjoy booze, what she's doing is no longer enjoying booze. She's got a problem and so we decide it's illegal to make that problem worse.
As with booze, for some people these things have no pull. I feel no desire to drink booze, and I also feel no desire to buy video game coins. But that's fine, the regulations aren't about me. Regulations protect the vulnerable.
It'd be cool if a nonprofit free to play alternative was set up to cut into some of the damage these do.
You can choose then, the simple option is our customers can't spend enough to go over that line, the potentially more lucrative but difficult option is check on your "whales" and only allow those who match affordability criteria.
I'm strongly against lootboxes and very concerned about videogames that are effectively casinos, but what the op described is just a videogame
I do understand the dopamine process of demo games on casino sites, but still. Allowing people to pay for that...
But I think this will inadvertantly lead to an overall increase in prices, probably not intended by the people pursuing this.
Why? Because most of these in-game currencies are sold in packs of varying sizes and the larger packs are usually cheaper per-currency than smaller packs. A volume discount.
Selling the currency like this means the euro value of a single unit of currency is variable, which obviously cannot be reconciled with a requirement to peg a specific euro price onto the actual goods thereof.
So assuming this action is successful, we'll probably see an end to the volume discount with large packs becoming sold at the same euro-per-currency pricing as small packs, and a currency-to-euro conversion printed on the actual goods next to the price in currency.
Showing the "real" cost should DECREASE the cost because when people see it in terms that they use day to day it feels like it's more expensive, so they are more likely to spend less. This would decrease profits for these video games.
The more likely unintended, if you can call it that, outcome would be that less games are solely free to play, relying exclusively on in-game cosmetic transactions.
I'm quite confident that whatever legislation they pass will only motivate other workarounds that make the problem worse for everyone involved.
Except the politicians, of course (do they count as people?).
Namely in that the in-game currency, not ackshually being real money, can be provided as rewards during normal gameplay and distributed by the devs during events, campaigns and promotions, or for compensation ("apologems") without complicated bureaucratic tax work for both devs and players.
I also think it's just tacky seeing actual dollar/yen/pound/euro signs flying around when you're trying to just enjoy yourself, which an in-game currency nicely avoids.
None of this to say the pricing being opaque isn't a problem of course, because it is and I reiterate that I agree with the legal action here in the interests of consumers.
Let's do a 1 cent to 1 Bullshit Buck scenario.
You want to buy that sweet thing that costs 1600 Bullshit Bucks? Too bad, you can only buy 2000 Bullshit Bucks at a time. Now you have 400 Bullshit Bucks that you can't do anything with, because nothing in the game store is that cheap. So you either have to buy MORE currency and hope that you can purchase something that will even things out, or you basically just handed the company $4.
The spending comes strictly from my entertainment budget, for obvious reasons.
The "leftovers" from my purchases truly don't bother me since I'll use them later anyway as I buy more.
The games are clear in what they sell (particularly Fire Emblem Heroes after they got burned once by the players). I am acutely aware what I am buying, and what I can get with them. I am happy with the experience the games provide me as a whole, else I wouldn't be playing them for the better part of a decade straight and paying them my money.
So no, the games I cited aren't scammers. You are welcome to not like the business model, but calling them scammers is unwarranted.
If there are any loopholes left they can be closed next year, but effectively playing with money should be treated like gambling is. Because that's exactly what it is.
I like F2P games. I know it's hard for someone born rich to understand this, but not everyone could afford something like World of Warcraft's $60 buy-in price with a $15 monthly subscription fee.
> not everyone could afford something like World of Warcraft's $60 buy-in price with a $15 monthly subscription
There are plenty of much cheaper and even free games that aren't employing these abusive psychological tactics. In fact they've pretty much always been there, in contrast to this newer development of microtransaction over the last 10 years.
I like using Steam Wallet, and got many "free" games thanks to selling items on Community Market, but all of this always seemed like some grey area. In fact, even Steam Subscriber Agreement seems to contradict itself on the matter (it claims that Steam funds have no value, but later says that an user is responsible for any income taxes on Steam funds acquired on Community Market).
There is no fake currency you can buy in varying sized bundles with opaque deals or discounts for larger purchases.
With most games with in-game currencies it’s free to play with paid cosmetics. Both the game’s price bears no relation to the production (it’s free) nor the skins’ (as they are subsidizing the free game).
I think that model is actually quite excellent (allowing people without money to still enjoy the game, while giving something to those who are happy to throw money at it, everybody being able to easily play with each other).
I am totally in favor of getting rid of in-game currencies, though. If anything, it should be like in steam, where you have an in-app wallet with a balance in your local currency.
[0]: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/__138.html
In a normal game you'd kill orcs, pick up some stuff from each dead orc, sell the stuff to a merchant, and buy stuff you want from a different merchant. You're suggesting that should be illegal, so you should have to just... already start with all the equipment you'd ever want?
Videogame firms hit with EU complaint over 'tricking consumers'
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41516556
What? Given how many that spend 0, there has to be alot of abused children.
The source they give for this is: https://www.videogameseurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/V... , which says this number is actually:
> Average spent per month (amongst all parents of children who spend in-game items)
According to the same source, 18% spend, 76% don't, and 7% are unknown. So excluding the unknowns, that's an average of 7.5€ per month.
Are in game purchases used for money loundering? Like, if you own half the stock in a company you can get a pretty good money cleaning rate.
But the 39€ must be bs. I think just a really few children have so much money left just for in-game.
It's also a well known fact in such ecosystems, the big part of the money comes from a small part of (addicted) people.
How would you know?
What if they’re rich? Then they have a lot of money and time.
Can someone be addicted to golf? Anyway, why are rich people obligated to spend their money and time in a balanced, well rounded way anyway?