Monopoly is the opposite of a game of chance. You don't roll the dice to see who wins, you roll the dice until something terrible happens and one player loses. All the strategies in the world I've seen like chances of landing on certain squares and their payoff for investment are pointless - it's not the pressure that kills a player, it's usually something utterly unsurvivable, like an upgraded property right before Go or that property tax card (which in Mario Party fashion is utterly lethal to the player who's clearly winning).
Monopoly is the opposite of a game of chance. You don't roll the dice to see who wins, you roll the dice until something terrible happens and one player loses. All the strategies in the world I've seen like chances of landing on certain squares and their payoff for investment are pointless - it's not the pressure that kills a player, it's usually something utterly unsurvivable, like an upgraded property right before Go or that property tax card (which in Mario Party fashion is utterly lethal to the player who's clearly winning).
In other words, with Monopoly, you are 100% guaranteed to have a bad time. Since it's 100%, it's definitely not a game of chance.
Monopoly is a game of chance. The chance simply happens early in the game. If you get good properties and if your opponent lands on properties when you have more money than your opponent but they cannot afford the property normally are good events. The person who receives more of these early good events wins the game an hour later, once the loser gets so far behind that they have to start mortgaging... and then the winner buys them up at half price.
Under-fives are being blitzed with app-based ads which are often manipulative, inappropriate or deceptive, according to a coalition of campaign groups.
Examples given include a character crying if the child does not pay to unlock part of a game, and an app promoting another title that showed a cartoon of the US president trying to press a "nukes" button.
More than 20 groups have called on US regulators to launch an official probe.
A UK charity has also urged action.
...
Character endorsements
The study gives several examples of advertising techniques which it thinks raise concern:
use of commercial characters - in Paw Patrol: Air and Sea Adventures it says some characters show facial expressions of disappointment when the player does not choose locked items
teasers - in the free version of Balloon Pop it says the user is shown fancier-than-normal balloons, but if selected a sound effect and written text state that they are only available in the full app
interruptions - in Kids Animal Jigsaw it says pop-up ads appear every time the player completes a puzzle, meaning they take up about as much time as gameplay
character encouragement - in Strawberry Shortcake Bake Shop it says the protagonist always states how much better the locked pay-to-use tools are than the free ones
unsuitable ads - one unnamed app was said to feature banner adverts for bipolar disorder treatments and Instagram, which has a 13+ age limit
camouflaged items - in Talking Tom it says that a present falls from the ceiling which appears to be part of the game but is actually a prompt to "watch videos and win"
...
Edbuzzkids' Sight Words was also highlighted for prompting players to click on ads by using cartoon hands to guide them to a banner.
In addition, the groups said the "x" used to close out of ads in several apps was very small, meaning children were likely to tap outside it and be led to a purchase screen or app store instead.
"The blurred lines between ads and entertainment may simply overwhelm the defences children are still in the process of building," the groups wrote to the Federal Trade Commission.
...
"This issue and the questions raised are just as relevant in the UK," Will Gardner told the BBC.
"If advertising is aimed at children who are too young to distinguish advertising from other content for example, then there is a clear issue to address."
The matter falls under the remit of the Advertising Standards Authority in the UK. Its current rules focus on whether ads might cause distress or include age-restricted products.
I would rather be accused of intransigence than tolerating genocide for the sake of everyone getting along. - @Metzger Meister
Under-fives are being blitzed with app-based ads which are often manipulative, inappropriate or deceptive, according to a coalition of campaign groups.
Examples given include a character crying if the child does not pay to unlock part of a game, and an app promoting another title that showed a cartoon of the US president trying to press a "nukes" button.
More than 20 groups have called on US regulators to launch an official probe.
A UK charity has also urged action.
...
Character endorsements
The study gives several examples of advertising techniques which it thinks raise concern:
use of commercial characters - in Paw Patrol: Air and Sea Adventures it says some characters show facial expressions of disappointment when the player does not choose locked items
teasers - in the free version of Balloon Pop it says the user is shown fancier-than-normal balloons, but if selected a sound effect and written text state that they are only available in the full app
interruptions - in Kids Animal Jigsaw it says pop-up ads appear every time the player completes a puzzle, meaning they take up about as much time as gameplay
character encouragement - in Strawberry Shortcake Bake Shop it says the protagonist always states how much better the locked pay-to-use tools are than the free ones
unsuitable ads - one unnamed app was said to feature banner adverts for bipolar disorder treatments and Instagram, which has a 13+ age limit
camouflaged items - in Talking Tom it says that a present falls from the ceiling which appears to be part of the game but is actually a prompt to "watch videos and win"
...
Edbuzzkids' Sight Words was also highlighted for prompting players to click on ads by using cartoon hands to guide them to a banner.
In addition, the groups said the "x" used to close out of ads in several apps was very small, meaning children were likely to tap outside it and be led to a purchase screen or app store instead.
"The blurred lines between ads and entertainment may simply overwhelm the defences children are still in the process of building," the groups wrote to the Federal Trade Commission.
...
"This issue and the questions raised are just as relevant in the UK," Will Gardner told the BBC.
"If advertising is aimed at children who are too young to distinguish advertising from other content for example, then there is a clear issue to address."
The matter falls under the remit of the Advertising Standards Authority in the UK. Its current rules focus on whether ads might cause distress or include age-restricted products.
In relation to this, something which is angering me greatly lately is that the apple app store USED to have a section for each game or app which read like this....
Top paid items
1. Box of gems ($4)
2. Crate of gems ($10)
3. Favorite characters pack ($20)
4. Istanbul Expansion ($5)
5. Lonestar Pistol ($3)
So you could quickly and easily see if a game was a poisonous free to play nightmare or a real game
But as of 12 months ago they changed the store such that there's just a little button which says...
"This game includes paid downloadable content blah blah blah"
And because EVERY game has at least some Paid DLC, every game has the button so you can't see whats a real game. In addition, games which USED to be real games that I play have gradually become freemium nightmare versions of themselves.
What this means is that it is literally impossible to provide a safe curated gaming experience to a kid on a phone or tablet.
The number of children classed as having a gambling problem has quadrupled to more than 50,000 in just two years, a report has claimed.
The commission also raised concerns that close to a million young people had been exposed to gambling through "loot boxes" in video games or on smartphone apps.
These can involve a player paying money for an item that is only revealed after purchasing.
You mean an educational opportunity on why we should eat the rich.
I thought that's what Cooking Mama was about (I've never played it, not a fan of cannibalism).
No, Monopoly really is an educational opportunity on why we should eat the rich. That's why it (well, The Landlord's Game) was first made.
Then capitalism got its hands on it. So now we've got Angry Birds Monopoly.
It's the prisoner's dilemma, it's almost impossible to lose as an altruistic Co-op until one side betrays the other. And usually when faced with a Co-op acting in good faith, the people who like Monopoly will quit or be ruined before you have to turn on each other. Or they'll do it immediately after.
The International Game Developers Association has put forth a call to action regarding how loot boxes are used, a few days after the Federal Trade Commission agreed to launch an investigation into monetization schemes in video games to see whether or not they take advantage of young players.
[...]
"Random loot drops are a well-established game mechanic, and a way to vary rewards and keep players interested and engaged," the post continues. "But when a player makes a real-money purchase of an unknown item-a loot box-we run the risk of triggering gambling laws."
[...]
To protect younger players from the potentially exploitative monetization mechanic, the IGDA urges the game dev community to establish "clear, easy-to-understand game ratings and content descriptions so that consumers, and especially parents, understand what's in the games they or their children play."
This includes:
Affirm an industry commitment to not market loot boxes to children.
Clearly disclose the odds of different rewards when purchasing loot boxes.
Launch a coordinated education campaign that boosts awareness of the parental controls that are available to appropriately limit how players engage with games
They shook, and with good reason.
I would rather be accused of intransigence than tolerating genocide for the sake of everyone getting along. - @Metzger Meister
The game industry had it's chance to self regulate and thoroughly blew it. The call to action itself largely ignores predation on adults and suggests existing laws might be vague and new ones overreaching. It's like they'd have to comply with laws in the countries they sell in and might have to hire lawyers. Which if you are intent on selling micro transactions to anyone is something you should be doing anyway.
Piss off mate, you had you're chance. European countries aren't going to back off writing laws explicitly dealing with this issue on the promise the industry self regulates. There is no reason to believe the games industry is capable of restraint. For a time they tried waiting around for game devs to get their house in order with mobile gaming and they just got worse.
All indicators are that game companies have been fully aware of how seedy and manipulative their loot box practices have been, and relied on lobbying and government apathy to never call them on it. Now that they are, they aren’t really mounting a rhetorical offense.
Launch a coordinated education campaign that boosts awareness of the parental controls that are available to appropriately limit how players engage with games
Just as a tangent, I saw an advertisement for an actual gambling app a while back, and among its boasted features were hard monthly limits on credit card spending and an easy way to see how much you spent, so you could see when you were taking it too far.
Launch a coordinated education campaign that boosts awareness of the parental controls that are available to appropriately limit how players engage with games
Just as a tangent, I saw an advertisement for an actual gambling app a while back, and among its boasted features were hard monthly limits on credit card spending and an easy way to see how much you spent, so you could see when you were taking it too far.
When you have to tout these features, yikes.
When you have to tout those features, but also can say, "These features are far more advanced, fair, and consumer protective than those used in "Magic pony happy town express", our competitors lootbox focused product targetted at 5 year olds"
Launch a coordinated education campaign that boosts awareness of the parental controls that are available to appropriately limit how players engage with games
Just as a tangent, I saw an advertisement for an actual gambling app a while back, and among its boasted features were hard monthly limits on credit card spending and an easy way to see how much you spent, so you could see when you were taking it too far.
When you have to tout these features, yikes.
When you have to tout those features, but also can say, "These features are far more advanced, fair, and consumer protective than those used in "Magic pony happy town express", our competitors lootbox focused product targetted at 5 year olds"
*Shareholders immediately sell their interest and invest in Magic pony happy town express*
Launch a coordinated education campaign that boosts awareness of the parental controls that are available to appropriately limit how players engage with games
Just as a tangent, I saw an advertisement for an actual gambling app a while back, and among its boasted features were hard monthly limits on credit card spending and an easy way to see how much you spent, so you could see when you were taking it too far.
When you have to tout these features, yikes.
A lot of those features are required by various Governments. "Gamble Responsibly" had to be forced on them and are constantly evaluated and audited.
Launch a coordinated education campaign that boosts awareness of the parental controls that are available to appropriately limit how players engage with games
Just as a tangent, I saw an advertisement for an actual gambling app a while back, and among its boasted features were hard monthly limits on credit card spending and an easy way to see how much you spent, so you could see when you were taking it too far.
When you have to tout these features, yikes.
A lot of those features are required by various Governments. "Gamble Responsibly" had to be forced on them and are constantly evaluated and audited.
It's weird in the Uk I used to do some work repairing AWP machines (Slot machines) at a casino and for problem gamblers we couldn't force any bans on them or intervene in any meaningful way. The most we could do is hand them a leaflet with information and hope they would request a self imposed ban (most didn't).
Personally I also think its dangerous to have either side of the regulation argument, it's obvious the industry won't self regulate and something needs to happen but if you impose government regulation, it's authenticity to action for the industry to push the practice to the absolute limits (something in which they aren't doing currently).
Take for example in the UK there was a stink with mobile phone networks imposing inflation charges on customers contracts several times a year meaning a contract cost over a 12 month period could have 3 price increases (usually way under inflation but still annoying). The government got involved and regulated it to ban multiple increases in price and said if companies do this you could leave the contract. The government also said that companies could only increase prices by so much above inflation within so many times per year, so each of the networks now guarantee price increases by the maximum amount they are allowed, making costs worse for the customers than before.
0
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Launch a coordinated education campaign that boosts awareness of the parental controls that are available to appropriately limit how players engage with games
Just as a tangent, I saw an advertisement for an actual gambling app a while back, and among its boasted features were hard monthly limits on credit card spending and an easy way to see how much you spent, so you could see when you were taking it too far.
When you have to tout these features, yikes.
A lot of those features are required by various Governments. "Gamble Responsibly" had to be forced on them and are constantly evaluated and audited.
It's weird in the Uk I used to do some work repairing AWP machines (Slot machines) at a casino and for problem gamblers we couldn't force any bans on them or intervene in any meaningful way. The most we could do is hand them a leaflet with information and hope they would request a self imposed ban (most didn't).
Personally I also think its dangerous to have either side of the regulation argument, it's obvious the industry won't self regulate and something needs to happen but if you impose government regulation, it's authenticity to action for the industry to push the practice to the absolute limits (something in which they aren't doing currently).
Take for example in the UK there was a stink with mobile phone networks imposing inflation charges on customers contracts several times a year meaning a contract cost over a 12 month period could have 3 price increases (usually way under inflation but still annoying). The government got involved and regulated it to ban multiple increases in price and said if companies do this you could leave the contract. The government also said that companies could only increase prices by so much above inflation within so many times per year, so each of the networks now guarantee price increases by the maximum amount they are allowed, making costs worse for the customers than before.
I am trying to remember who supplied us with AWP software. Ash Gaming I think? It was a UK company.
They had the most terrible awesome puns for names. Abrakabra for a genie was food stand theme, Hiphophipotomus for a rapping hippo etc.
Facebook encouraged game developers to let children spend money without their parents’ permission – something the social media giant called “friendly fraud” – in an effort to maximize revenues, according to a document detailing the company’s game strategy.
Sometimes the children did not even know they were spending money, according to another internal Facebook report. Facebook employees knew this. Their own reports showed underage users did not realize their parent’s credit cards were connected to their Facebook accounts and they were spending real money in the games, according to the unsealed documents.
For years, the company ignored warnings from its own employees that it was bamboozling children.
A team of Facebook employees even developed a method that would have reduced the problem of children being hoodwinked into spending money, but the company did not implement it, and instead told game developers that the social media giant was focused on maximizing revenues.
When parents found out how much their children had spent – one 15-year-old racked up $6,500 in charges in about two weeks playing games on Facebook – the company denied requests for refunds. Facebook employees referred to these children as “whales” – a term borrowed from the casino industry to describe profligate spenders. A child could spend hundreds of dollars a day on in-game features such as arming their character with a flaming sword or a new magic spell to defeat an enemy – even if they didn’t realize it until the credit card bill arrived.
That you would even think for a microsecond that the inside baseball term for kids you're manipulating should be "whales" should get you shot out of a cannon into the Sun.
Facebook encouraged game developers to let children spend money without their parents’ permission – something the social media giant called “friendly fraud” – in an effort to maximize revenues, according to a document detailing the company’s game strategy.
Sometimes the children did not even know they were spending money, according to another internal Facebook report. Facebook employees knew this. Their own reports showed underage users did not realize their parent’s credit cards were connected to their Facebook accounts and they were spending real money in the games, according to the unsealed documents.
For years, the company ignored warnings from its own employees that it was bamboozling children.
A team of Facebook employees even developed a method that would have reduced the problem of children being hoodwinked into spending money, but the company did not implement it, and instead told game developers that the social media giant was focused on maximizing revenues.
When parents found out how much their children had spent – one 15-year-old racked up $6,500 in charges in about two weeks playing games on Facebook – the company denied requests for refunds. Facebook employees referred to these children as “whales” – a term borrowed from the casino industry to describe profligate spenders. A child could spend hundreds of dollars a day on in-game features such as arming their character with a flaming sword or a new magic spell to defeat an enemy – even if they didn’t realize it until the credit card bill arrived.
Facebook encouraged game developers to let children spend money without their parents’ permission – something the social media giant called “friendly fraud” – in an effort to maximize revenues, according to a document detailing the company’s game strategy.
Sometimes the children did not even know they were spending money, according to another internal Facebook report. Facebook employees knew this. Their own reports showed underage users did not realize their parent’s credit cards were connected to their Facebook accounts and they were spending real money in the games, according to the unsealed documents.
For years, the company ignored warnings from its own employees that it was bamboozling children.
A team of Facebook employees even developed a method that would have reduced the problem of children being hoodwinked into spending money, but the company did not implement it, and instead told game developers that the social media giant was focused on maximizing revenues.
When parents found out how much their children had spent – one 15-year-old racked up $6,500 in charges in about two weeks playing games on Facebook – the company denied requests for refunds. Facebook employees referred to these children as “whales” – a term borrowed from the casino industry to describe profligate spenders. A child could spend hundreds of dollars a day on in-game features such as arming their character with a flaming sword or a new magic spell to defeat an enemy – even if they didn’t realize it until the credit card bill arrived.
This is just outright evil.
IANAL, but I smell liability.
The documents are from a class action lawsuit. Facebook initially had them sealed, but the Center for Investigative Reporting convinced the judge the the public's right to know outweighed Facebook's embarrassment.
Remember when, a couple dozen pages back, it was being put forward as a matter of obvious fact that of course minors aren't being targeted by abusive cash shops?
A game targeted at children that even lets them spend 6500 bucks in 2 weeks is ipso facto predatory. Ban this shit like you'd ban smack dealers from a middle school playground.
Remember when, a couple dozen pages back, it was being put forward as a matter of obvious fact that of course minors aren't being targeted by abusive cash shops?
A game targeted at children that even lets them spend 6500 bucks in 2 weeks is ipso facto predatory. Ban this shit like you'd ban smack dealers from a middle school playground.
What's really revolting is that they tested basic barriers to purchasing micro transactions that worked.
And then not only refused to implement them because they would cut revenue, but then actually told developers "hey, what's a little 'friendly fraud' between friends?"
Facebook made a decision. Company policy was to tell game developers to let children spend money without their parents’ permission, according to an internal memo circulated within the company.
The memo stated, “Friendly Fraud – what it is, why it’s challenging, and why you shouldn’t try to block it.” “Friendly fraud” is the term Facebook used when children spent money on games without their parent’s permission.
Facebook made clear that game developers should let children spend money even without their parents’ permission.
The company was focused on revenue, not blocking friendly fraud. Its stated philosophy on chargebacks was “maximizing revenue,” according to the memo.
“There is a huge need to educate developers,” Elizabeth Williges, a Facebook employee wrote in the memo. It was sent to the head of Facebook’s payment operations and other employees, including Tara Stewart.
Rather than trying to stop children from making costly mistakes, the document stated that developers should just give free virtual items to users who complain, things such as flaming swords, extra lives and other in-game enhancements.
This was better than refunding money to kids because as the Facebook employee said in her message, “Virtual goods bear no cost.”
And for those customers who turned to their credit cards for help, Facebook was devising another strategy. It would design a program that automatically disputed customer’s chargeback requests, without even bothering to review the merits of those requests, according to another unsealed document.
Oh, that's another thing - they made it harder for parents to dispute charges.
That you would even think for a microsecond that the inside baseball term for kids you're manipulating should be "whales" should get you shot out of a cannon into the Sun.
Remember when, a couple dozen pages back, it was being put forward as a matter of obvious fact that of course minors aren't being targeted by abusive cash shops?
A game targeted at children that even lets them spend 6500 bucks in 2 weeks is ipso facto predatory. Ban this shit like you'd ban smack dealers from a middle school playground.
What's really revolting is that they tested basic barriers to purchasing micro transactions that worked.
And then not only refused to implement them because they would cut revenue, but then actually told developers "hey, what's a little 'friendly fraud' between friends?"
Facebook made a decision. Company policy was to tell game developers to let children spend money without their parents’ permission, according to an internal memo circulated within the company.
The memo stated, “Friendly Fraud – what it is, why it’s challenging, and why you shouldn’t try to block it.” “Friendly fraud” is the term Facebook used when children spent money on games without their parent’s permission.
Facebook made clear that game developers should let children spend money even without their parents’ permission.
The company was focused on revenue, not blocking friendly fraud. Its stated philosophy on chargebacks was “maximizing revenue,” according to the memo.
“There is a huge need to educate developers,” Elizabeth Williges, a Facebook employee wrote in the memo. It was sent to the head of Facebook’s payment operations and other employees, including Tara Stewart.
Rather than trying to stop children from making costly mistakes, the document stated that developers should just give free virtual items to users who complain, things such as flaming swords, extra lives and other in-game enhancements.
This was better than refunding money to kids because as the Facebook employee said in her message, “Virtual goods bear no cost.”
And for those customers who turned to their credit cards for help, Facebook was devising another strategy. It would design a program that automatically disputed customer’s chargeback requests, without even bothering to review the merits of those requests, according to another unsealed document.
Oh, that's another thing - they made it harder for parents to dispute charges.
So tell me how banks are going to take that part? I'm wondering if "dispute everything without review" is something they care for
That you would even think for a microsecond that the inside baseball term for kids you're manipulating should be "whales" should get you shot out of a cannon into the Sun.
That's just a term for any high spender in F2P
The point was they were using it to refer to kids whom they were tricking into spending money, which is revolting and shows how diseased the internal culture at Facebook is.
That you would even think for a microsecond that the inside baseball term for kids you're manipulating should be "whales" should get you shot out of a cannon into the Sun.
That's just a term for any high spender in F2P
I feel like “seals” would fit better when talking about children.
Also, how impressively abhorrent. This may finally get me to overcome my laziness and go delete my Facebook account that I haven’t logged into for like eight months.
+1
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
That you would even think for a microsecond that the inside baseball term for kids you're manipulating should be "whales" should get you shot out of a cannon into the Sun.
That's just a term for any high spender in F2P
I feel like “seals” would fit better when talking about children.
Also, how impressively abhorrent. This may finally get me to overcome my laziness and go delete my Facebook account that I haven’t logged into for like eight months.
The real term we should be using for children is "DO NOT FUCKING GO THERE ASSHOLE".
Posts
You mean an educational opportunity on why we should eat the rich.
I thought that's what Cooking Mama was about (I've never played it, not a fan of cannibalism).
In other words, with Monopoly, you are 100% guaranteed to have a bad time. Since it's 100%, it's definitely not a game of chance.
No, Monopoly really is an educational opportunity on why we should eat the rich. That's why it (well, The Landlord's Game) was first made.
Then capitalism got its hands on it. So now we've got Angry Birds Monopoly.
I mean...
You can't give someone a pirate ship in one game, and then take it back in the next game. It's rude.
In relation to this, something which is angering me greatly lately is that the apple app store USED to have a section for each game or app which read like this....
Top paid items
1. Box of gems ($4)
2. Crate of gems ($10)
3. Favorite characters pack ($20)
4. Istanbul Expansion ($5)
5. Lonestar Pistol ($3)
So you could quickly and easily see if a game was a poisonous free to play nightmare or a real game
But as of 12 months ago they changed the store such that there's just a little button which says...
"This game includes paid downloadable content blah blah blah"
And because EVERY game has at least some Paid DLC, every game has the button so you can't see whats a real game. In addition, games which USED to be real games that I play have gradually become freemium nightmare versions of themselves.
What this means is that it is literally impossible to provide a safe curated gaming experience to a kid on a phone or tablet.
It's the prisoner's dilemma, it's almost impossible to lose as an altruistic Co-op until one side betrays the other. And usually when faced with a Co-op acting in good faith, the people who like Monopoly will quit or be ruined before you have to turn on each other. Or they'll do it immediately after.
They shook, and with good reason.
Piss off mate, you had you're chance. European countries aren't going to back off writing laws explicitly dealing with this issue on the promise the industry self regulates. There is no reason to believe the games industry is capable of restraint. For a time they tried waiting around for game devs to get their house in order with mobile gaming and they just got worse.
That's the whole point of loot boxes.
Yeah but most of the time there’s some kind of ‘yeah but’ line of argument for why they shouldn’t need to change. But not this time.
Just as a tangent, I saw an advertisement for an actual gambling app a while back, and among its boasted features were hard monthly limits on credit card spending and an easy way to see how much you spent, so you could see when you were taking it too far.
When you have to tout these features, yikes.
Don't they invariably boil down to "yeah, but our shareholders..."?
Steam | XBL
yeah, but just think of the day you'll be one of them!
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
When you have to tout those features, but also can say, "These features are far more advanced, fair, and consumer protective than those used in "Magic pony happy town express", our competitors lootbox focused product targetted at 5 year olds"
Ah yes, the "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" theory.
Steam | XBL
*Shareholders immediately sell their interest and invest in Magic pony happy town express*
A lot of those features are required by various Governments. "Gamble Responsibly" had to be forced on them and are constantly evaluated and audited.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
It's weird in the Uk I used to do some work repairing AWP machines (Slot machines) at a casino and for problem gamblers we couldn't force any bans on them or intervene in any meaningful way. The most we could do is hand them a leaflet with information and hope they would request a self imposed ban (most didn't).
Personally I also think its dangerous to have either side of the regulation argument, it's obvious the industry won't self regulate and something needs to happen but if you impose government regulation, it's authenticity to action for the industry to push the practice to the absolute limits (something in which they aren't doing currently).
Take for example in the UK there was a stink with mobile phone networks imposing inflation charges on customers contracts several times a year meaning a contract cost over a 12 month period could have 3 price increases (usually way under inflation but still annoying). The government got involved and regulated it to ban multiple increases in price and said if companies do this you could leave the contract. The government also said that companies could only increase prices by so much above inflation within so many times per year, so each of the networks now guarantee price increases by the maximum amount they are allowed, making costs worse for the customers than before.
I am trying to remember who supplied us with AWP software. Ash Gaming I think? It was a UK company.
They had the most terrible awesome puns for names. Abrakabra for a genie was food stand theme, Hiphophipotomus for a rapping hippo etc.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
This is just outright evil.
IANAL, but I smell liability.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
The documents are from a class action lawsuit. Facebook initially had them sealed, but the Center for Investigative Reporting convinced the judge the the public's right to know outweighed Facebook's embarrassment.
A game targeted at children that even lets them spend 6500 bucks in 2 weeks is ipso facto predatory. Ban this shit like you'd ban smack dealers from a middle school playground.
What's really revolting is that they tested basic barriers to purchasing micro transactions that worked.
And then not only refused to implement them because they would cut revenue, but then actually told developers "hey, what's a little 'friendly fraud' between friends?"
Oh, that's another thing - they made it harder for parents to dispute charges.
That's just a term for any high spender in F2P
So tell me how banks are going to take that part? I'm wondering if "dispute everything without review" is something they care for
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
The point was they were using it to refer to kids whom they were tricking into spending money, which is revolting and shows how diseased the internal culture at Facebook is.
I feel like “seals” would fit better when talking about children.
Also, how impressively abhorrent. This may finally get me to overcome my laziness and go delete my Facebook account that I haven’t logged into for like eight months.
The real term we should be using for children is "DO NOT FUCKING GO THERE ASSHOLE".