Now do Stop Killing Games
this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2025
676 points (100.0% liked)
Gaming
31049 readers
612 users here now
From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!
Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.
See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Stop selling gambling as okay to kids. Gacha games equal gambling for minors.
It'd be fine if it was limited to like 1-5 dollars per account monthly with a yearly maximum. Not a 100 dollars at a time.
This is especially funny in South Korea. Go to a Casino and burn $2000 and you may even get jail time, but gatcha is A ok.
At least at a casino you can get something of value. The games effectively reward you in company script.
Games reward you in game mechanics, same as most games at a casino.
Scrip.
Some people hate the eu but I swear I only hear wins
because the people who hate the eu are the people who are wrong.
It's stuff like chat control that make me hate the EU sometimes.
Oh and the really really dumb cookie law.
The cookie law isn't dumb, but at this point it should maybe be reformed. Basically as long as a website doesn't do shady shit with cookies no cookie banner is required. Instead of complaining about the cookie banner law, people should complain about websites who sell their users' data.
Basically as long as a website doesn’t do shady shit with cookies no cookie banner is required.
That is actually the status quo. If a website only uses cookies that are needed to make the website function, there is no need for a banner or dialogue. These cookie banners are there deliberately to be annoying so you'll agree to more than is necessary.
The dumb bit of the law is the fact that websites are allowed to put up an annoying banner that says either accept cookies or individually deselect 240 checkboxes.
They're not actually allowed to do that, by my understanding. It must be equally simple to accept all cookies as it is to deny cookies.
The newest take on cookies, is "accept all, or pay to read". Quite shady, if you ask me.
and illegal.
I wonder if this will in practice put an end to the scummy practice of badly sized in game currency pack sizes, one of the many scummy techniques they use to make people spend more.
Let’s say the thing most players buy costs 3 ingame currency (I love that my autocorrect made „insane currency“ out of that). The smallest pack you can buy is 5. So, the player buys 5, spends 3 and has 2 left with which nothing to do. If they want another 3, they have to buy 5 more. Spend 3, have 4 left. Spend 3, have 1 left. The cycle continues.
Or, just stop games from selling in-game content?
Every skin is a texture or model swap, every "exclusive" always exists in the files, every in-game currency is fabricated.
Games try really really hard to make you pay for something that is copy and pasted
This is one of those radical ideas that people are terrified of, because it would kill the business models of a lot of massive corporations. It's easy to spin that as the death of the game industry, rather than what it is: the death of a business practice.
Like the laws against underage smoking probably wiped out billions in shareholder value, but that was objectively a good thing. Banning (or heavily regulating) in-game purchases would also be a good thing, no matter how much it affects existing players. If it leads to the death of name brands like EA, Ubisoft, etc. then who cares? The market will readjust and new players who were able to adapt to the changed environment will take their place.
Artificial scarcity in it's barest form.
The fact that even some people think this shit is acceptable is very telling of how far we have yet to go, psychologically speaking, as a species.
Monkeys in fucking trousers.
If anything gaming culture has regressed, at least in this aspect.
Remember when the $2.50 Oblivion horse armor DLC was considered to be ridiculous?
Nice, good for EU
Will they get rid of games have 3 or 4 or more "currencies."
Stay winning EU.
In-game purchases should display the exact cost in the local currency. In-game currency should be completely banned.
Depends what counts as an in game currency, does a game where you earn currency in-game and spend it in-game count as an in-game currency? What about if players can trade it?
We are talking about anything that has real monetary value, if you cannot obtain it through real money, then it's not in the discussion. Of course it opens a whole new problem, where they could sell "boosts" to earning virtual currency etc. So that would have to be taken into account with the legislation.
They're gonna have such a hard time parsing this for WoW... WoW gold is a major part of the game and they've been screwing with it for a while now, I don't play it anymore but I heard about possibilities to buy tokens that you sell for gold in game but conversely you can also use the gold to buy game time or something? And then off course all the DLC stuff, it's gonna be complicated for sure.
Yeah, same with OSRS, you buy a bond which you can turn into 1 week membership, or trade it other players. Which is honestly fine, it lets people get membership without spending real money, but I'd rather none of the better/fairer systems exist if it means removing the egregious ones. Really we just want to target systems that make you buy a virtual currency to just sell you microtransactions, but how do you write legislation for that? It's very tricky, which is why it's probably never going to happen.
There are many many examples of predatory uses of in game currencies, but here are some big reasons devs use them besides being scummy.
- Giving currency for free: giving people real money isn't something any dev wants to deal with, so giving in game currency allows this to happen. This also applies to games where you can convert free currency to premium currency.
- Local currencies: currency packages can be set to local prices without having to localize the in-game economy itself. This simplifies development a lot.
- Weak promotion support on distributor platforms: believe it or not, iOS and android have incredibly weak promotion and sale support. By giving in-game currency, it gets around that failing of the platforms because the game can do whatever it wants with the in-game currency.
Transparency is good, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
What baby? In game purchases? That's not a baby, that's a big shit somebody took in your tub. If transparency is too hard to implement, publishers should feel free to get rid of them altogether.
Giving currency for free: giving people real money isn't something any dev wants to deal with, so giving in game currency allows this to happen. This also applies to games where you can convert free currency to premium currency.
But this is how gift codes work, no? You're not giving money away directly. Just give a voucher for a real currency if you want to gift users.
Can you give me an example of one you've seen?
The original poster was saying paid currency shouldn't exist, so I think in that scenario, you could only have vouchers for a whole in-game item. So for example if an item costed $5, then yes you could give away codes to redeem that item.
There's also an operational overhead to doing it that way compared to in-game currency though, because setting up products in google play/iOS can be kind of a pain compared to adding them to your own systems. Generally the dev wants as much to be under their control as possible because they have more flexibility that way compared to making products in the app stores.
Also worth noting that iOS will block your app if you provide ways to get products (meaning things that cost real money) through ways other than the app store. So that means the dev wouldn't be able to ever give you something in the game itself if that thing can also be bought. They could only give coupon codes (these are manually generated) for products to use in the app store interface.
I'd be interested to hear an example of one you've seen because it might be a way to approach it that I'm not thinking about.
I guess there are no examples (yet?) because until now everybody was using in game currencies to deal with that.
But could you not give a player a voucher that says "-5€ on your next checkout" ? And then they get exactly that.
They can give items for free instead. Without currency they cant give you 90% of what you need and force you to overpay for extra.
A variable for a value is trivial. It already works perfectly fine in the store!
Sure sales on mobile... (sounds like Apple and Google would get some needed pressure to improve this area) but thats another problem, none of these purchases should be expensive enough to even warrant needing a sale in the first place.
The real reason they want in game currency is not any of these, it's for the deception factor, avoiding refunds, upselling etc
Also in some games players can trade the currency
- Give store credit for free. Easy. Let them turn ingame currencies into store credit.
- That might be difficult, i give you that, but given the amount of work companies put into their monetization schemes, i am sure a converter can be worked out. Or use dollar/euro/ruble/yuan equivalents, depending on the largest market near a smaller currency.
- See 1. Give away store credit.
Store credit is not necessarily simple. There are tons of laws about that kind of thing that differ country to country and in the US state to state. For example in my state, gift certificates can't expire, so once you give one away as the dev you have to track that on your books forever, even if no one ever uses it. In your free example it's even worse, because the company has to write that money off as real money, because it can never expire. It's basically the same as giving away real money from a bookkeeping perspective (at least in my state). Someone with more bookkeeping knowledge can probably give a better answer but that's my limited understanding of that as a sole proprietor who does my own books.
I would also question if store credit is actually any less predatory than a premium currency. If the premium currency is transparent and easy to understand it's basically the same thing, no? Hypothetically, if I'm a scummy developer, I could sell $5 in store credit, and then make all the items on the store cost $8. That's the same result for the player as bad monetization schemes with premium currency. I know in your example you're saying give it away, but somewhere in there the developer is going to need to make money. They can't give credit away for in-game currency and hope to stay afloat as a business for long without some deeply predatory stuff going on like in roblox.
At the end of the day I think everything you're saying is probably feasible in some form for a AAA dev, but not for small devs. Personally I'm also thinking about small devs without an army of compliance specialists and lawyers. I'd like indies to also be able to make money, not just the conglomerates.
For example, saying a system could be worked out to localize an in-game economy is a hand wave. Every game works differently under the hood and in how it paces things, and this would be a huge undertaking to implement and maintain (probably a nonstarter for a small team). It involves more than simple conversion.
Does someone from a weak currency country get different rewards by playing the game than someone from a strong currency? How does that work if that reward is a whole item, not a bit of currency? Do we really want capitalistic shenanigans to extend into the gameplay directly? Personally I prefer that stuff to be cordoned off in the in-game shop.
That's my take on all that. I'm not a lawyer and I don't work for a AAA dev, so take this stuff with a grain of salt. My experience comes from having to tackle all these issues as a tiny indie dev.
Even 2 isn't difficult. If they can set a price on the currency itself then they can set it on each item trivially.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I find it interesting that it says it’s based on existing legislation. In that case I’ma bit disappointed that it took them so long to act. But, it’s of course a stop in the right direction.
The CPC Network, coordinated by the European Commission, is publishing a set of guidelines today to promote transparency and fairness in the online gaming industry's use of virtual currencies.
That doesn’t seem binding.
Nah thats usually how those start out afaik. They start with a guideline and a grace period. Then when the grace period is over there is a warning period and after that it goes straight to fines.
The CPC Network will monitor progress and may take further actions if harmful practices continue.
Lets see what happens.
load more comments
(2 replies)
How will this affect the Platinum market in Warframe?
These seem to be the four major points:
clear and transparent pricing and pre-contractual information;
avoiding practices hiding the costs of in-game digital content and services, as well as practices forcing consumers to purchase virtual currency;
respect of consumers' right of withdrawal;
respecting consumer vulnerabilities, in particular when it comes to children;
First one actually seems pretty well covered by Warframe already. Second point can be met just by displaying the real currency price next to the plat price, calculated based on what people on average give per plat when purchasing through the Warframe website. Third point... Yeah that's going to be a point of contention for sure. That'll require a redesign of the plat system. Fourth point I'd also say Warframe does. Their 'oh shit' moment when they ended up creating a slot machine with, what was it, kubrow skins? Demonstrates them actually caring about this already. Basically they saw people interacting with a new mechanic much like one would a slot machine, and then soon after rolled it back and refunded everyone who had spent money on it.
"Right of withdrawal" is quite easy: allow cancelling the transaction before the in-game content has actually been used.
It only takes a "has been used" flag, and maybe a log entry to prove when.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›