By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
SuperNova on 13 January 2016
Edit Thread
Neodegenerate said:
SuperNova said:

Well, there go the kids tuition funds.

The Dad has no one, but himself to blame, first he didn't raise his kid to be financially (and otherwise) responsible and then he choose to hand him a credit card. I'd tell him to get a job and repay me every single penny personally. Even with a shitty mini-job he should be done in two years time.

That being said, I feel conflicted about the moral of this. While I do think people should have to learn to spend their money resposibly and that the state shouldn't have to interfere with that, I also feel like there should be a cap on microtransactions too.

Whaling people has very similar mechanics to gambling. These microtransactions are actively set up in a way, as to make you crave more, make you an addict, if you will. That's a very shady business practice at best. I feel like companys that employ those tactics should not get off scot free either. A legal microtransaction limit on games of about 100-200$ per year seems ok to me.

Putting a cap on a company's ability to make money because some people can't control themselves is ridiculous.  Let's say I have $1,000 in disposable income that I don't mind spending on microtransactions per month and I am able to do so without getting addicted and whatnot.  Now my ability to do so is removed because others can't control themselves or their kids?  It isn't up to the people providing a service to hold our hands all the way through the process, even if that service is indeed shady.  At some point personal accountability needs to be accepted.

 

I don't disagree. That's why i said I'm conflicted.

But I'm also not convinced of putting a companies ability to make money via shady business practices over everything else, especially since this kind of sum could put people into ruin. Yes, it was very bad judgement on the fathers and kids part, but they don't deserve to, say, loose their house over it either. 7000-8000 is an astronomical sum for most people, nothing to just shrug at.

And I'm not suggesting a system where the poor company would need to go under because no one is allowed to spend on microtransactions either, more of an acceptable maxximum cap at wich point you either have gotten everything there is to get, like pokemon rumble world for example where after you spent about 15$ you basically bought the game, or you get a smaller drip feed of content, sort of like when you maxed out your bandwith on your phone, you still get internet, but it's slower. Don't know how that would work for FIFA, since I don't play it.

But pretending any company would somehow need an access of 7000$ in microtransactions in addition to a 60$ retail price doesn't help anyone either. If a company is seriously that dependent on microtransactions that a generous cap is going to hurt them unduly it is doing bad business.