this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2024
171 points (96.2% liked)
Games
16399 readers
994 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Isn't it time to get some regulations on m(i/a)cro transactions? This seems very illegal to me and it is exploiting people's addictions.
What really is probably illegal at this point is officially calling it all "pledges", i.e. "donations", and calling ships and stuff a "reward for the generous donation".
Dudes, this is literally what a purchase is. If I don't donate, I don't get a ship (or even a base game).
This seems to be a ground to sue the hell out of them.
What's illegal about it? Are they committing some kind of fraud? Is there some threat of harm if people don't buy it (i.e. extortion)? Where exactly is the potential crime?
Yeah, it would be pretty stupid to buy this in general, especially if you can't actually afford it, but being stupid isn't illegal.
Fomo is a form of coercion, and im pretty sure that's a crime in this case. The industry uses underhanded and shady practices to get people to spend money on things that have no intrinsic value.
I can see from your comment that its possible you haven't looked into this very much because you sound like me a few yesrs ago when i didnt see the harm as im not particularly susceptible to the ways they pedal microtransactions/in game purchases.
lol it very obviously is not a crime. It's not even a civil action.
I don't support the whale business model for video games, but the idea that it's somehow a crime is a laughable lack of understanding of the law.
No, fomo is not a form of coercion whatsoever. Here's the legal definition in the federal legal code:
So it requires the threat or implied threat of serious harm or abuse of the law against a person.
And no, not looking cool or being at the top of a game isn't "serious harm," you'd be laughed out of the courtroom and perhaps fined for wasting everyone's time if you tried to make that legal argument.
Im not making a legal argument... im making a philosophical one.
The original context of this chain is a legal one:
Yes, you didn't say that, but you responded in that context. I asked "what is illegal about it?" and you directly replied with the note about coercion. To me, that clearly implies you think this is a form of legal coercion, and now you're backpedaling because I showed that's explicitly not true. You're moving the goalposts.
That completely fair. You can definitely interpret that implication from what i said. I need to be more careful with my choice of words in future.
However, i assure you my intent was not to make a legal argument.
I was saying that coercion is illegal, which is true. And that i believe that fomo is a form of coercion, which would be my opinion. But it doesn't read that way.
Sorry.
No worries, it just gets confusing when terms are used loosely and differently in a conversation.
For the record, I disagree that both that FOMO is a form of coercion (even the regular dictionary definition implies force is involved) and believe it shouldn't be illegal to entice adults with it, but there should be limits on marketing to children. That said, any form of advertising can be considered a form of fomo, so I'm not exactly sure where the line should be. That said, we do have limits on fraud, which covers things like making unrealistic claims (e.g. this cosmetic will make you win). It's disgusting, but shouldn't be illegal.
Fair enough.
Google tells me "fomo" is probably an acronym for "fear of missing out" (it'd probably help make your points clearer if you didn't obfuscate them behind acronyms the people you're talking might not be familiar with, by the way).
Supposing that's the case... what is there to miss out on in Star Citizen..? Any package above the base ones (which get you the games for about $40) give you absolutely nothing that you can't get in-game (with the arguable exception of a few limited edition ships, which in any case shouldn't offer any in-game advantages and can probably be considered cosmetic)... you're not missing out by not buying them...
What the everloving fuck?
What?
Isn't it what regulations are for?
Plus a lot of micro transactions and all kinds of bullshit like this are targeting the adolescents so at least they should be bound by law that whoever purchases those virtual goods is above 18 at least.
Microtransactions in games mainly played by minors should be illegal, yes (and in some countries they are), as they're basically a form of gambling... but people giving CIG money are mostly those who played Wing Commander back in the nineties and want a modern version of that, so there's little risk of kids being involved, at least until the games are properly released (and, even then, they're PC exclusive, and most kids are probably on consoles or mobile devices), at which point as I understand it these ship sales are supposed to stop... and there's nothing micro about them... if I recall correctly the smallest package (which would get you a base ship and the two games) goes for about $40...
I don't think $48k still counts as a "micro" transaction...
Exactly, there's no microtransactions in Star Citizen.
Whatever we call the way it's funded, and regardless of what we think of it, it's not microtransactions.
Lootboxes are gambling.
Buying specific known digital items is a gross business model, but has no resemblance to gambling.
No, but it should still be banned for minors since they're particularly sensitive to peer pressure. They can make decisions for themselves when they're adults.
I agree, that part might be illegal because adolescents cannot legally consent (in most cases). So there's a chance there, but my guess is that an adolescent isn't going to be making a $48k MTX purchase (they aren't old enough to legally have debt, and probably not old enough to earn that much).
In general though, I can't think of any law this violates.
Exploiting peoples addictions is what literally drives capitalism.
Plus making people pay for essentials by gatekeeping everything behind the owner class