Epic Games to pay $520M to resolve FTC allegations(wsj.com)
wsj.com
Epic Games to pay $520M to resolve FTC allegations
https://www.wsj.com/articles/epic-games-maker-of-fortnite-to-pay-520-million-to-resolve-ftc-allegations-11671456744
159 comments
I don’t know what the big deal is with people in this thread saying, “bah, this is impossible” but I work on a COPPA compliant game and “chat off for kids by default” is a standard or < 13 cannot play your game (my understanding, IANAL).
https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/childrens-on...
https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/childrens-on...
How are you verifying age? The "this is impossible"s are about it being accurate on age not the disabling of chat once you have an accurate age. The point being the law is useless theatre that does nothing to prevent kids from using it but annoys everyone else anyways.
I'm not a lawyer, but does the law require 100% un-hackable accuracy? Not the law as-written, but as-enforced? Has anyone been successfully penalized because they failed to catch one under-13 year old who said "Yes" to a dialog? Most sites I've seen either ask for your birth year or your age, and trust what the user says. If that's enough to be in compliance, why would any company make it more complicated? It's like if you've ever visited an alcohol company's web site, they ask "Are you 21?" and if you say yes, that's all they care about.
So just set it to off by default for everyone? That seems like a pretty pragmatic and very non-theatrical improvement. Of course it will have to contend with the theatrics of gamers whining about the immense hassle of a one-time settings change to enable voice chat.
I think a difficulty here is that a lot of responders are imagining that all children are the same precocious 13 year old they were -forgetting the trusting 8 to 10 year olds they also were, and they are doing that thing where the edge cases start to dwarf the primary purpose in their minds.
Yeah apparently on the one hand, setting the default to Off would absolutely clobber Fortnite's engagement metrics and the law is unjust for this. On the other hand, setting the default to Off would not make a dent in children's usage of this product and therefore the law is useless.
Who cares about their engagement metrics? Like, what societal good does it do? I’m not sure the law is unjust because a company’s (non financial) metrics are impacted when the law acts as intended.
For the record, I’m pro games and against pearl clutching game ratings and “for the children” style laws, but I’m also not very sympathetic to big companies profits being a motivation for our lawmakers.
For the record, I’m pro games and against pearl clutching game ratings and “for the children” style laws, but I’m also not very sympathetic to big companies profits being a motivation for our lawmakers.
How does this prevent children from enabling voice chat?
The FTC's statement specifically says the issue is that it was on by default. Not that it could possibly be turned on by a child.
> The FTC’s $275 million proposed settlement with Epic Games, owner of Fortnite, alleges the company violated the law by collecting personal information from kids under 13 without parental consent and by enabling voice and text chat by default
> The FTC’s $275 million proposed settlement with Epic Games, owner of Fortnite, alleges the company violated the law by collecting personal information from kids under 13 without parental consent and by enabling voice and text chat by default
The law is that <13 can not be voice recorded without parental consent, the way Fortnite broke this was by having it on by default. This does not mean the only way to break this is by having it on by default it's just what Fortnite was doing.
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2017/10/...
Even if "by default" was the law though that would seem to make things even more theatrical and less pragmatic anyways.
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2017/10/...
Even if "by default" was the law though that would seem to make things even more theatrical and less pragmatic anyways.
Right but could it possibly be the case that FTC knows there's no reasonable way to validate ages, and they'd not go after companies for "affirm you're not <13 years of age" so long as they make a reasonable effort to prevent it, or at least not set the default to be in clear violation of the law?
You know, alcohol, weed, and porn companies have managed just fine with user affirmations.
You know, alcohol, weed, and porn companies have managed just fine with user affirmations.
“I am 18+” is a well known joke as well and you can’t get purchased alcohol/weed without ID before it shows up (well, legally) because that’s when people realized they need a real measure not a fake one for show.
That the FTC would know there is no reasonable way would be a strong indicator it is indeed not a reasonable law. The default is definitely why Fortnite got fined, and is a reasonable reason to be fined, but it doesn’t make the law somehow effective it just makes Fortnite wrong for intentionally violating the law. I.e. they should have be fined but not because the law protects children effectively rather it’s not up to them to decide if it does on their own.
That the FTC would know there is no reasonable way would be a strong indicator it is indeed not a reasonable law. The default is definitely why Fortnite got fined, and is a reasonable reason to be fined, but it doesn’t make the law somehow effective it just makes Fortnite wrong for intentionally violating the law. I.e. they should have be fined but not because the law protects children effectively rather it’s not up to them to decide if it does on their own.
I don't even know what point you're trying to make now.
Changing the default will certainly reduce the number of kids who are subject to toxic game chat. FTC knows it, I know it, you know it, and Epic knows it.
Changing the default will certainly reduce the number of kids who are subject to toxic game chat. FTC knows it, I know it, you know it, and Epic knows it.
I hate this word but it's about consent. If an 8 year old enables voice chat they're consenting to the shit that comes out of it. They may not fully understand what they're getting into, but that's a different issue.
perfect is the enemy of good here, the other poster is arguing that because it's not perfect and is easily circumvented that it will have no effect, and, as you said, we all know this isn't true.
perfect is the enemy of good here, the other poster is arguing that because it's not perfect and is easily circumvented that it will have no effect, and, as you said, we all know this isn't true.
[deleted]
"Off by default" is also a great way to make sure your feature is not used by the vast majority of people. It could easily lead to user attrition for new players looking for a social experience as well.
For what it's worth, games like Dota 2 already default all communication on new accounts to "off". It's a rite of passage for new players to play some games and realize they haven't heard anyone say anything. Then they find the setting and realize they're being relentlessly flamed for being new.
Once you climb out of the beginner ranks, literally everyone has found the communication settings and has adjusted them to their preferences.
I agree that most of the time, people don't change defaults. But isn't true for team games in my experience.
Once you climb out of the beginner ranks, literally everyone has found the communication settings and has adjusted them to their preferences.
I agree that most of the time, people don't change defaults. But isn't true for team games in my experience.
Ah yes, the classic "privacy/security/compliance hurts our funnel" argument. Said as if the former aren't more important than the latter.
Maybe getting social experiences from places other than fortnite is a good thing?
Ah yes, the ol' "lower user engagement versus non-stop racial slurs piped into the ears of the 13 year olds you just marketed your highly addictive game to" dilemma
Here is a link to our support site which provides more information:
https://recroom.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/4426900227735-...
https://recroom.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/4426900227735-...
Love Rec Room :)
But this is basically the button press the GP was talking about, during sign up (which can be separate from the main sign up on the same device) the kid just says they were born in 1912 and now the mic works. Yes it's compliant with the law but it's the same problem GP was actually talking about - there is no real verification.
Having parental controlled accounts is a nice feature in general though, regardless of the legal requirements. Ultimately things like this come down to making good parenting easier and that can help.
But this is basically the button press the GP was talking about, during sign up (which can be separate from the main sign up on the same device) the kid just says they were born in 1912 and now the mic works. Yes it's compliant with the law but it's the same problem GP was actually talking about - there is no real verification.
Having parental controlled accounts is a nice feature in general though, regardless of the legal requirements. Ultimately things like this come down to making good parenting easier and that can help.
I think the idea is that parents are supposed to create accounts on Epic and Steam, not children. The parent selects the correct age during account creation.
What's stopping the kid from making a new account though? Knowing myself, I did similar things as a child especially since my parents were not very tech literate.
100% stopping kids in voice chat isn't the goal. Stopping kids from accidentality joining voice chat is.
So nothing is stopping them from purposefully getting a chat activated account, that's the point.
So nothing is stopping them from purposefully getting a chat activated account, that's the point.
The law itself disagrees. It's quite explicit that the point is to not allow kids into chat rooms at all without parental consent. It does not mention anything about preventing kids from accidentally joining chat just that they are not the ones able to provide consent to allow chat.
Is your argument that the law specifically has language interpreting its goal?
Can you quote it please, because I find that surprising.
Can you quote it please, because I find that surprising.
[deleted]
Voice chat without parental approval is less likely to happen if the device is in public space in the residence.
This is true independent of the law.
I've made fake accounts for my kids where I lied about their age, in order to bypass certain restrictions. That's how screwed up our legislation is in this area.
Exactly. It's a well-armoured safe door on a safe with no sides.
There are multiple ways, but considering they own a company that is supposed to do this as a service, failing to do this for the own biggest game seems a bit weak.
https://www.superawesome.com/
https://www.superawesome.com/
SuperAwesome KWS is another click button "verification" solution. Being interested in selling ads in a COPPA compliant-enough way isn't the same thing as making COPPA verification accurate/more than theatre.
Fortnite was too blatant with it by doing this with all accounts including ones that had entered young ages but that doesn't mean other apps that follow the entered age are accurate it just means they aren't likely to get fined. Which sure - still fine Fortnite. Knowingly breaking a law because you want to doesn't make you exempt from the law even if the law is useless in practice.
I'd personally like if the law could be made into something more meaningfully verifiable I just don't think there is a reasonable way to do so. E.g. the UK has an opt-in requirement at the ISP level for porn access because "I am 18+" buttons weren't actually doing anything but making a legal bypass. Yet it's both a ridiculously bad solution and still easily worked around anyways.
Fortnite was too blatant with it by doing this with all accounts including ones that had entered young ages but that doesn't mean other apps that follow the entered age are accurate it just means they aren't likely to get fined. Which sure - still fine Fortnite. Knowingly breaking a law because you want to doesn't make you exempt from the law even if the law is useless in practice.
I'd personally like if the law could be made into something more meaningfully verifiable I just don't think there is a reasonable way to do so. E.g. the UK has an opt-in requirement at the ISP level for porn access because "I am 18+" buttons weren't actually doing anything but making a legal bypass. Yet it's both a ridiculously bad solution and still easily worked around anyways.
Amazing the contradictory thinking people have about “it’s impossible to know a child’s age” vs. “it’s totally fine and reasonable that Google knows you’re pregnant before you do”.
Amazing how many people in this thread want to run to the government to solve the problem.
It’s kind of like that musk thread from yesterday where a bunch of people showed up to defend the policy of banning links. If someone makes a rule, there will always be someone else who thinks it’s a good idea.
As someone who grew up on roleplaying games when I was about 13, and had lots of exposure to the adult side of life, I’m with you. It’s totally lame that the government is trying to regulate this.
It’s kind of like that musk thread from yesterday where a bunch of people showed up to defend the policy of banning links. If someone makes a rule, there will always be someone else who thinks it’s a good idea.
As someone who grew up on roleplaying games when I was about 13, and had lots of exposure to the adult side of life, I’m with you. It’s totally lame that the government is trying to regulate this.
13 is nothing like 10, or 8. I have nephews playing on their own at 4.
I do not have children but I could not imagine my parents leaving me with unfettered access to a TV at age 4. If the Internet had been around, they certainly wouldn't have given me an internet-enabled device and left me by myself.
How is playing games online where you can communicate with random people across the world without any sort of parental supervision possibly a good idea?? And why is it someone else's problem?
I don't mean this rudely, but how about actually doing some parenting?
I used to work with a guy who said the schools should be doing more to make children behave better, as if he was somehow absolved of any input. Absolutely baffling.
How is playing games online where you can communicate with random people across the world without any sort of parental supervision possibly a good idea?? And why is it someone else's problem?
I don't mean this rudely, but how about actually doing some parenting?
I used to work with a guy who said the schools should be doing more to make children behave better, as if he was somehow absolved of any input. Absolutely baffling.
I'm also not a parent or a teacher. And I try my best to not give parenting advice to actual parents.
It helps to remember that life is complicated and there are limitless factors that can contribute to a family dynamic. Growing up my parents barely knew what the internet was and just associated it with "the computer". They attuned it as a "toy" and nothing serious. This allowed me unfiltered access to anything that was on the internet at the time.
You'd hope today's parents are more knowledgeable but I bet the majority of parents are just trying to get by and aren't ramped up as to how everything works today. They may be pressured to go with the technological flow head first due to society without fully knowing or controlling everything.
Anyways, back to my point, telling someone to "go parent right", especially as a non-parent, maybe you can approach it better.
It helps to remember that life is complicated and there are limitless factors that can contribute to a family dynamic. Growing up my parents barely knew what the internet was and just associated it with "the computer". They attuned it as a "toy" and nothing serious. This allowed me unfiltered access to anything that was on the internet at the time.
You'd hope today's parents are more knowledgeable but I bet the majority of parents are just trying to get by and aren't ramped up as to how everything works today. They may be pressured to go with the technological flow head first due to society without fully knowing or controlling everything.
Anyways, back to my point, telling someone to "go parent right", especially as a non-parent, maybe you can approach it better.
I sympathize with parents, but I can only accept the naiveté argument up to a point. It's one thing to be naive. It's another to make your naiveté a problem for everyone else. At this point, it is simply not reasonable for a parent to be completely oblivious to the dangers of the internet for little kids.
Yes that's a good point that people aren't necessarily clued up on the intricacies of the technology they're liberally giving to their children, but that still doesn't negate actual supervision. It's like handing a handsaw to your child and then wandering off.
And my main point that supervision and parenting go hand in hand doesn't require me to be a parent to know that, in the same way that I know that a handsaw can be dangerous yet I am not a carpenter. You don't need to be Parent of the Year or a genius to know that leaving children unsupervised with something can go very badly, like leaving them to play with plug sockets... My parents didn't need to get to their second child to learn that - it's obvious.
I'm not sure how else I could possibly word it to make such an obvious point more palatable, even though I am no expert in parenting. (I do have cats though and I know not to leave ANYTHING out because they wreck it.... That also doesn't take much to work out even if you don't own cats!)
And my main point that supervision and parenting go hand in hand doesn't require me to be a parent to know that, in the same way that I know that a handsaw can be dangerous yet I am not a carpenter. You don't need to be Parent of the Year or a genius to know that leaving children unsupervised with something can go very badly, like leaving them to play with plug sockets... My parents didn't need to get to their second child to learn that - it's obvious.
I'm not sure how else I could possibly word it to make such an obvious point more palatable, even though I am no expert in parenting. (I do have cats though and I know not to leave ANYTHING out because they wreck it.... That also doesn't take much to work out even if you don't own cats!)
At some point we have to consider it the parent's/guardian's responsibility to restrict a child's access to any service that provides access to online, user-generated content without supervision.
Despite all my problems with Epic, I agree with OP here. This should not be Epic's problem. This is a problem for parents/guardians and the ESRB/PEGI. The ESRB and PEGI rated the game for 13+ and 12+ respectively, which I'd argue is appropriate, so IMO it should be entirely a problem for the parents/guardians.
Despite all my problems with Epic, I agree with OP here. This should not be Epic's problem. This is a problem for parents/guardians and the ESRB/PEGI. The ESRB and PEGI rated the game for 13+ and 12+ respectively, which I'd argue is appropriate, so IMO it should be entirely a problem for the parents/guardians.
Translating what FTC is saying to plain English, FTC is saying Epic didn't do enough to move liability away from them (Epic) and onto the parents/guardian. The liability ball was still in Epic's court, so FTC fined them.
If Epic had some form of age verification in place, past that point it's the parents'/guardian's problem whether the kid lies or the kid asks them to give their authorization. The liability ball would be in the parents'/guardian's court.
It's why all software and websites that handle data coming from underage kids always verify age or straight up don't handle that data (eg: Youtube Kids videos' comments, the lack thereof) at all.
Obligatory IANAL.
If Epic had some form of age verification in place, past that point it's the parents'/guardian's problem whether the kid lies or the kid asks them to give their authorization. The liability ball would be in the parents'/guardian's court.
It's why all software and websites that handle data coming from underage kids always verify age or straight up don't handle that data (eg: Youtube Kids videos' comments, the lack thereof) at all.
Obligatory IANAL.
Epic could add a dose of CYA here. Disable voice and text chat, and put the enable switch behind a "for 18+ only" or something like that and have them confirm their birthdate. Not that it would actually stop minors from bypassing this by clicking through the prompt and entering a fake age. But this would allow Epic to argue to the court that they are doing more than their competitors to verify that children are not using voice/text chat and that requiring them to go further would be unfair.
* Not a lawyer
* Not a lawyer
When we get into situations like this, you do have to question if the law requiring it is just plain silly.
Thinking about it, I can't blame the FTC for requiring it even if it is laughably stupid. If their mandate is "Do the best you can", putting in some obstruction to kids voice chat is better than nothing. Even if it only prevents 0.00001 more kids from using voice chat, their mandate is to choose that over 0.
If this is a COPPA issue, you just have to ask for birth year and you’re allowed to trust the answer.
Yeah, I don’t know what the big deal is with people in this thread saying, “bah, this is impossible” but I work on a COPPA compliant game and “chat off for kids by default” is absolutely a must.
It’s because a lot of engineers get hung up in the “oh there’s so many ways to defeat this” mindset, and forget that perfect is the enemy of good.
Sensible defaults are a good enough start and many regulations like this are based around best efforts , not absolute perfection.
Sensible defaults are a good enough start and many regulations like this are based around best efforts , not absolute perfection.
It seems so pointless though.
I was signing up for all sorts of things when I was a kid. Nothing bad by any stretch of the imagination but I knew when they asked "are you 13" you just click "yes" and you're good to go.
Seems like a "feel good" solution that will collectively waste thousands of hours. I don't see why this is required, quite honestly.
I was signing up for all sorts of things when I was a kid. Nothing bad by any stretch of the imagination but I knew when they asked "are you 13" you just click "yes" and you're good to go.
Seems like a "feel good" solution that will collectively waste thousands of hours. I don't see why this is required, quite honestly.
There's also the fact that the kid who is enough of a dope(/trusting/rule and authority abiding) to not know he can lie on the form is also the most likely to be victimized by adults online.
This is a similar selection effect to misspelled Nigerian prince emails, so I'd say it's a pretty good mechanism actually.
This is a similar selection effect to misspelled Nigerian prince emails, so I'd say it's a pretty good mechanism actually.
It is somewhat performative but it does save some percentage of children who are honest about it, and at the very least it lets you pass the buck to the user.
Yeah it’s easily defeated but so is wearing seatbelts when you drive.
Yeah it’s easily defeated but so is wearing seatbelts when you drive.
Yup. It’s both true that the age gate is easy to defeat and that it helps in practice.
If I have a F2P game on mobile, do I then have to force ask the users age at the start to track things like DAU without getting potentially sued because I was unintentionally without knowing tracking < 13 years?
IANAL. However, my answer to that question would be “it’s a good idea.”
COPPA specifically calls out collecting device identifiers and cookies as personal information. Here’s the money line:
“It shall be unlawful for any operator of a Web site or online service directed to children, or any operator that has actual knowledge that it is collecting or maintaining personal information from a child, to collect personal information from a child in a manner that violates the regulations prescribed under this part.”
Note “directed to children.” If your game isn’t directed to children, you’re fine, but that’s a terribly fuzzy definition. In practice I would recommend taking the safe road and age gating for games. Again, I am not a lawyer.
Edit: I read the complaint and Epic was explicitly marketing to ages 10+, so this wasn’t at all fuzzy for them.
COPPA specifically calls out collecting device identifiers and cookies as personal information. Here’s the money line:
“It shall be unlawful for any operator of a Web site or online service directed to children, or any operator that has actual knowledge that it is collecting or maintaining personal information from a child, to collect personal information from a child in a manner that violates the regulations prescribed under this part.”
Note “directed to children.” If your game isn’t directed to children, you’re fine, but that’s a terribly fuzzy definition. In practice I would recommend taking the safe road and age gating for games. Again, I am not a lawyer.
Edit: I read the complaint and Epic was explicitly marketing to ages 10+, so this wasn’t at all fuzzy for them.
Thank you, that makes sense.
So just because perfect enforcement is not possible the law doesn’t make sense to you? Of the billions(maybe trillions) of interactions on this game this law prevents millions of stupid ones with small children. That’s more than enough of a reason for you to click one extra button. Boo boo. Google seat belt law statistics on a similar situation.
I'm not super familiar with the details of the case, but I'm familiar with Fortnite since I play it with my son. We frequently find voice chat being turned back on at startup, despite us turning it off. Maybe that's what they are referring to, somewhat sloppily?
> So voice chat must now be turned off by default for all children across America? How on earth is this supposed to be policed? Should everyone playing a game be required to upload ID? And what is the gate between on and off by default? A single button press?
I mean, if it's just turned off by default under the plain meaning of words... just turn it off for everyone by default, and if you want to listen to children calling you racial slurs, you can turn it on. No need to collect ages.
Otherwise, I've never seen much more than asking for your birth year to determine age, so it only affects children who can't figure out how to lie about their age. A skill that I've seen develop in minutes within the right framework.
I mean, if it's just turned off by default under the plain meaning of words... just turn it off for everyone by default, and if you want to listen to children calling you racial slurs, you can turn it on. No need to collect ages.
Otherwise, I've never seen much more than asking for your birth year to determine age, so it only affects children who can't figure out how to lie about their age. A skill that I've seen develop in minutes within the right framework.
Turn off voice chat by default for everyone. Let people opt-in to the toxicity that is online gaming.
I played a lot of Destiny, and it doesn't (didn't?) have voice chat. No problem. I also played a lot of Overwatch, which has voice chat that I didn't use. No problem. When I wanted to queue up for ranked, I would join a group and we would turn on voice chat. Also no problem.
I'm not sure why your position is "children should have to opt out of voice chat". Why not "adults have to opt in to voice chat"? After all, it's single button press?
I played a lot of Destiny, and it doesn't (didn't?) have voice chat. No problem. I also played a lot of Overwatch, which has voice chat that I didn't use. No problem. When I wanted to queue up for ranked, I would join a group and we would turn on voice chat. Also no problem.
I'm not sure why your position is "children should have to opt out of voice chat". Why not "adults have to opt in to voice chat"? After all, it's single button press?
I didn't play Destiny, but Destiny 2 definitely has voice chat enabled by default.
You ask the users for their date of birth on signup, don't tell them that it will be used for age-gating features (to avoid incentivizing lying), and don't allow the date to be changed without some kind of age verification.
Or you use the social graph to infer age: somebody who mainly plays with 10 year olds is probably also about 10. If they claim to be 20, require an id anyway.
Non-gaming companies deal with this all the time. It's annoying, but shouldn't require blazing any new trails.
Or you use the social graph to infer age: somebody who mainly plays with 10 year olds is probably also about 10. If they claim to be 20, require an id anyway.
Non-gaming companies deal with this all the time. It's annoying, but shouldn't require blazing any new trails.
10 year olds aren't as dumb as you're assuming here, they'd either make a new account, or have already been been putting an 18+ birth date for years.
All anyone cares about is covering their own ass, so it'd solve that issue, but it would have neglibile effect on anything real.
Source: Used the internet when I had to lie to every site about being over 13, so lied to every site about being over 13. Also vrchat requires being 13+, and boy, does 'requiring' it not accomplish anything at all.
All anyone cares about is covering their own ass, so it'd solve that issue, but it would have neglibile effect on anything real.
Source: Used the internet when I had to lie to every site about being over 13, so lied to every site about being over 13. Also vrchat requires being 13+, and boy, does 'requiring' it not accomplish anything at all.
It doesn't matter whether some will circumvent the age-gate. The company made an attempt, and enough kids are blocked by it, this is a good enough for the law, at the moment. But Epic is not willing to even walk this short way...
What is the point then? It would be like a bar tender asking if you're 21 and letting you drink if you just reply "yes." Regulators would be happy though because "at least you tried?"
I get its just trying to shift the burden onto the parents and the "lying child" but at the end of the day it just seems like it would collectively waste so many hours.
I get its just trying to shift the burden onto the parents and the "lying child" but at the end of the day it just seems like it would collectively waste so many hours.
The point is that it's better than no having no solution. Not every kid is lying, not every kid is on its own. That we need a better solution, does not invalidate usage of the existing in the meantime.
>The point is that it's better than no having no solution
IMO, I just feel like it wastes too much time to justify itself. Hundreds of thousands of hours spent on a solution that relies entirely on the (unreliable) respondent.
IMO, I just feel like it wastes too much time to justify itself. Hundreds of thousands of hours spent on a solution that relies entirely on the (unreliable) respondent.
[deleted]
You're saying this like it's bad but I'm not sure it is. If kids want to use voice chat they can, all they have to do is lie about their age. Default off for children is a good policy, and allowing them to get it around it with some effort probably is too. Seems like what's important here is that unsuspecting children aren't thrown into voice chat and immediately called the n word or something. If the kids are prepared to be bullied then they can go ahead with voice chat.
We all know this can be bypassed but it is still the strategy pursued by a lot of services where some or all content is not appropriate for kids.
Yeah, Google thinks I'm 31 years older than I actually am.
So are we all forced to have a signup at the start to not get sued? Can't just have a mobile/browser game that tracks basic data?
It is federal law that taking any data from children under 13 requires prior authorization from the parents/guardian. If your code takes any data, you must verify the end user's age and, if they are underage, provide a way for the parents/guardian to contact you for giving authorization.
Yes, we all know kids lie when they see the age verification, but the presence of age verification moves the liability away from the developer/publisher and onto the parents/guardian of the underage kid.
Obligatory IANAL.
Yes, we all know kids lie when they see the age verification, but the presence of age verification moves the liability away from the developer/publisher and onto the parents/guardian of the underage kid.
Obligatory IANAL.
> So voice chat must now be turned off by default for all children across America? Should everyone playing a game be required to upload ID? And what is the gate between on and off by default? A single button press?
When you go to the shop to buy alcohol you need to show an id. So, adults are free to buy alcohol but not children. Why is this any different?
I understand that the problem comes from the amount of chat abuse in on-line communities. It not just swearing but the constant harrasement as soon as someone is losing a match, or even if they are winning.
I understand your concerns, but ignoring the chat problem paints a partial picture of the situation.
When you go to the shop to buy alcohol you need to show an id. So, adults are free to buy alcohol but not children. Why is this any different?
I understand that the problem comes from the amount of chat abuse in on-line communities. It not just swearing but the constant harrasement as soon as someone is losing a match, or even if they are winning.
I understand your concerns, but ignoring the chat problem paints a partial picture of the situation.
Somehow that wasn't an issue the last two decades, comparing it to alcohol is absurd, you dont go to the epic cornerstore and talk to the epic fortnite clerk to unlock voice chat.
This war on "toxicity" at the expense of basic communication is insane, the match ends and it all supposed harassment ends.
This war on "toxicity" at the expense of basic communication is insane, the match ends and it all supposed harassment ends.
Children in voice chat has been an issue for decades, maybe you just didn't notice?
what was "the chat problem" ?
The fact that online gaming chat is really really toxic. It's one of those things where christian mothers were right about video games but wrong about why. It turns out that artificial violence and guns and sex aren't some big corrupting influence but hanging around assholes for the majority of your leisure time and social activity absolutely is.
Online gaming where the only communication between players is jumping and canned voice lines is a wildly different experience.
Online gaming where the only communication between players is jumping and canned voice lines is a wildly different experience.
Or maybe this is exactly the same as those christian mothers, in the sense that it's "think of the children" hysteria from modern day puritans?
Oh no, it's "this shit is bad for absolutely everyone regardless of age and in some cases worse for adults, particularly young men, but it's politically infeasible to do anything to stop it once people turn 18."
The irony is that the people I find to be most toxic in video games are the children. To the point that in a lot of "Looking for Group" Discord channels you see people saying "18+ only".
It's almost like people without fully developed brains don't have very healthy social interactions in a giant soup of similar kids who don't know how to have healthy social interactions and the 4chan-ness of it just encourages being as angry and toxic as possible.
It's actually probably the same problem drivers face. When driving, your brain kind of ignores that other normal humans drive the other cars, and therefore you are extremely judgemental of their actions, because you expect them to be perfect. This is why so many people road rage.
It's actually probably the same problem drivers face. When driving, your brain kind of ignores that other normal humans drive the other cars, and therefore you are extremely judgemental of their actions, because you expect them to be perfect. This is why so many people road rage.
I don't share your experience at all. In fact the the majority of online gaming chats I've been in have been relatively enjoyable and low drama.
It's generally the ones that have children in them that get toxic - I would guess because children have less developed social filters and act out their negative emotions more readily than adults.
It's generally the ones that have children in them that get toxic - I would guess because children have less developed social filters and act out their negative emotions more readily than adults.
> It's generally the ones that have children in them that get toxic
That is the problem. Kids are learning from each other to be harmful and hateful as there is no consequences for that behaviour. In other spaces they will be called out by adults, but game chats become a learning place for the worst behaviours at the same time that this games are rated as "apt for children". Rate them 18+ or kill the chat, it is all about not lying to buyers.
That is the problem. Kids are learning from each other to be harmful and hateful as there is no consequences for that behaviour. In other spaces they will be called out by adults, but game chats become a learning place for the worst behaviours at the same time that this games are rated as "apt for children". Rate them 18+ or kill the chat, it is all about not lying to buyers.
It’s not uncommon for the OS to have an age lock these days (eg iOS) that parents can set, and kids can’t unset. Or, the parent can set the age in the console’s user profile and the system locks it.
That seems to be a trivial solution to the problem here.
In this case there is a small amount of work required of Epic to enable the law to be enforced in the ecosystem. Without that work to add profiles and enforce ages in the game, the OS/platform cannot enforce either. So it’s obviously moving things towards compliance to ding Epic here.
That seems to be a trivial solution to the problem here.
In this case there is a small amount of work required of Epic to enable the law to be enforced in the ecosystem. Without that work to add profiles and enforce ages in the game, the OS/platform cannot enforce either. So it’s obviously moving things towards compliance to ding Epic here.
Voice chat has been a “staple” but it’s consistently a torrent of abuse in the most mainstream games for almost two decades now. God help you if your voice presents female.
The game industry loves the mainstream ignorance on this issue. Epic conveniently omits the fact from parents giving their kids Fortnite bux that their 11 year old kid is directly talking with adults twice their age.
Seems like there are lots of ways to confirm age, with various levels of sophistication and thoroughness. I think it’d be easy to improve on the status quo of a flat zero.
The game industry loves the mainstream ignorance on this issue. Epic conveniently omits the fact from parents giving their kids Fortnite bux that their 11 year old kid is directly talking with adults twice their age.
Seems like there are lots of ways to confirm age, with various levels of sophistication and thoroughness. I think it’d be easy to improve on the status quo of a flat zero.
Huh? That's the easiest one of all - anything that is privacy invading should be off by default. Most of us are not super aware of what the hell is 'on and off' in this nutty world.
It's exceedingly nuts to me that I would start doing something and all of a sudden random strangers could hear me or interact with me.
Default off for everyone, probably by law.
Anyone can just turn the default to be 'on' it's not a big deal.
It's exceedingly nuts to me that I would start doing something and all of a sudden random strangers could hear me or interact with me.
Default off for everyone, probably by law.
Anyone can just turn the default to be 'on' it's not a big deal.
Can it be off by default but the user can enable it manually? Does it say it's off unless age verified or just off by default?
> How on earth is this supposed to be policed? Should everyone playing a game be required to upload ID?
No need for a photo ID, Epic is also under fire for the amount of data it already collects from children. They are well aware who is playing. [1]
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2022/12/record-se...
> Voice chat is a staple of online games. Having a core feature included in a game by default is common sense.
It is so common sense that many games have minute long sections where it is outright impossible to mute trolls because the controls for voice chat aren't always accessible. Quite sure Fallout 76 didn't have any controls for it at all when it came out. The only choice in that case is to mute sound permanently, which is fucking stupid.
> Having a core feature included in a game by default is common sense.
I rarely use voice chat and the build in one even less. Call me old fashioned but I often just use a team speak server when playing with friends - once it works, it works for all games.
No need for a photo ID, Epic is also under fire for the amount of data it already collects from children. They are well aware who is playing. [1]
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2022/12/record-se...
> Voice chat is a staple of online games. Having a core feature included in a game by default is common sense.
It is so common sense that many games have minute long sections where it is outright impossible to mute trolls because the controls for voice chat aren't always accessible. Quite sure Fallout 76 didn't have any controls for it at all when it came out. The only choice in that case is to mute sound permanently, which is fucking stupid.
> Having a core feature included in a game by default is common sense.
I rarely use voice chat and the build in one even less. Call me old fashioned but I often just use a team speak server when playing with friends - once it works, it works for all games.
What's wrong with keeping voice chat off by default? That is a sensible approach for everyone, not just kids.
Exactly. It's extremely intrusive to have some random fool listening in on my own household, when I may be unaware. People have no idea how technology works, even smart people.
Default mic/camera etc. off - they can provided a nice little popup and have us turn it on.
Because companies will always push boundaries and cross the line, we need legislation unfortunately and can only hope the legislators don't fuck it up.
Default mic/camera etc. off - they can provided a nice little popup and have us turn it on.
Because companies will always push boundaries and cross the line, we need legislation unfortunately and can only hope the legislators don't fuck it up.
This I can get behind... but I do always go to the options and turn on "push to talk."
I don't like the idea of legislation requiring such a thing though.
I don't like the idea of legislation requiring such a thing though.
We need legislation because PM's pushed to profit by CEO's just cross the line far too often. It's hard to explain but when you see it, you understand. It's the game we create. We don't even need to point the finger, because usually it's not 'someone's fault' is just stuff that happens. Many of these decisions are made even without deliberation.
It'd be nice to have 'best practices' oversight instead of lawyers but we're not that sophisticated yet.
And we don't really have a way of contemplating 'scale' aka once companies reach a certain size, their impact is greater and we have to be more careful.
It'd be nice to have 'best practices' oversight instead of lawyers but we're not that sophisticated yet.
And we don't really have a way of contemplating 'scale' aka once companies reach a certain size, their impact is greater and we have to be more careful.
It’s mostly down to who the game targets. If it’s clear that under 13 kids will be playing, then COPA rules apply.
So if you are making a Lego game, you’ll need to comply, but if you are making “Murder Sex Drugs III” then you won’t.
So if you are making a Lego game, you’ll need to comply, but if you are making “Murder Sex Drugs III” then you won’t.
> Murder Sex Drugs III
I'd preorder that game in a heartbeat.
I'd preorder that game in a heartbeat.
This is also an accessibility barrier for the blind. (To be fair, ADA regulations now require games to include text-to-speech and speech-to-text support for in-game chat to mitigate it.)
Can they please turn it off by default for everyone?
I shouldn’t have to go to the settings for every single game to find out if some random fucker is going to hear me crunching on chips.
I shouldn’t have to go to the settings for every single game to find out if some random fucker is going to hear me crunching on chips.
So, you are against any laws relating to the internet and children?
Seems easy to comply by just applying it to everyone.
voice chat will simply move to 3rd party apps, Suchas discord.
I'm still waiting for something to be done about Epic buying video games that support multi-platform like Rocket League then removing multi-platform support from those games. I bought Rocket League. I played Rocket League. Epic bought Rocket League and suddenly I couldn't play Rocket League. And I'm just left hanging with a useless "single player" rocket league that can no longer play the game.
Epic is as much of a monster or worse than Microsoft was in it's prime. It buys games then puts them behind it's paywall, ruining the games for people that bought them before. It uses it's Unreal game engine position to attack companies that make games in it's engine by releasing clones of them (ie, the Fortnite copy of PUBG). It sells games like Fortnite which I bought for $40+ back before it was popular, then it completely changes the game and makes it impossible for me to continue playing the game I bought.
I will never, ever, give any Epic software a place on any of my computers. Not buying, not "free", not anything. They still owe me $35 for stealing Rocket League and $44 for taking away Fortnite (the original game).
Epic is as much of a monster or worse than Microsoft was in it's prime. It buys games then puts them behind it's paywall, ruining the games for people that bought them before. It uses it's Unreal game engine position to attack companies that make games in it's engine by releasing clones of them (ie, the Fortnite copy of PUBG). It sells games like Fortnite which I bought for $40+ back before it was popular, then it completely changes the game and makes it impossible for me to continue playing the game I bought.
I will never, ever, give any Epic software a place on any of my computers. Not buying, not "free", not anything. They still owe me $35 for stealing Rocket League and $44 for taking away Fortnite (the original game).
You did not buy a guaranteed life-long access to online Rocket League in all its future forms.
Your purchase of Rocket League came with access to the online service as it currently stands as a trust only relationship between you and the owners of the online Rocket League service.
I understand your pain here, and I don't want to defend Epic games, but as someone who has created multiple free cloud services only to have their costs or development requirements exceed my ability to maintain them I am weary of anything that would legally require me to maintain a cloud service past my desire to do so.
Your purchase of Rocket League came with access to the online service as it currently stands as a trust only relationship between you and the owners of the online Rocket League service.
I understand your pain here, and I don't want to defend Epic games, but as someone who has created multiple free cloud services only to have their costs or development requirements exceed my ability to maintain them I am weary of anything that would legally require me to maintain a cloud service past my desire to do so.
> as someone who has created multiple free cloud services only to have their costs or development requirements exceed my ability to maintain them I am weary of anything that would legally require me to maintain a cloud service past my desire to do so
I'd argue the expectation of a multi-billion dollar corporation to maintain an online service feature for a paid product that they are still actively providing on other platforms is pretty reasonable. And that expectation should not add any risk of liability for individuals like you shutting down free online services.
It would come down to how the theoretical law was written. But just because a law can be written poorly doesn't mean we should seek to maintain the status quo.
I'd argue the expectation of a multi-billion dollar corporation to maintain an online service feature for a paid product that they are still actively providing on other platforms is pretty reasonable. And that expectation should not add any risk of liability for individuals like you shutting down free online services.
It would come down to how the theoretical law was written. But just because a law can be written poorly doesn't mean we should seek to maintain the status quo.
I can't speak generally, but I bought rocket-league on steam, and I still play it online, multiplayer, on steam, with steam friends or epic friends.
No longer if you were playing on Linux
Rocket League runs great with proton, and in my testing, it ran better than the native version when it was still available.
I am aware of that. But I didn't buy a proton version, I bought a Linux version.
So essentially, you were offered a remedy that allowed you to continue playing the game, you rejected the remedy, and now you're complaining? They're obligated to support the old version of the client forever, regardless of any obstacles to that?
If you bought it to play on a 32-bit Mac would they be obligated to port it to 64-bit? Would they be obligated to port an OpenGL-based client to Metal after Apple's deprecation?
If you bought it to play on a 32-bit Mac would they be obligated to port it to 64-bit? Would they be obligated to port an OpenGL-based client to Metal after Apple's deprecation?
Lets get back to reality here. Epic bought Rocket League. They said they wouldn't change anything during the purchase. 6 months later there is no more linux client.
You're telling me that because I can emulate the game it still exists. If I accept this premise than literally all games are linux games and the concept of platform goes out the window. It's absurd.
You're telling me that because I can emulate the game it still exists. If I accept this premise than literally all games are linux games and the concept of platform goes out the window. It's absurd.
Proton is a compatibility layer (just like WINE), not an emulator, unless you're planning to play on ARM64. It's just like using VKD3D or MoltenGL instead of using a native graphics API, plenty of games do that.
They're letting you play the game you paid for. I can understand being unhappy about the loss of a Linux client, but by all reports the Proton version runs better, so what's the actual problem other than your ideology? Epic is a corporation, not a religion.
They're letting you play the game you paid for. I can understand being unhappy about the loss of a Linux client, but by all reports the Proton version runs better, so what's the actual problem other than your ideology? Epic is a corporation, not a religion.
>Until late 2018, for instance, Epic automatically stored the credit card information for anyone who made a single purchase in Fortnite and didn't require the CVV security information for further purchases. That made it easy for many children to make additional purchases without their parents' consent, according to the FTC.
Epic also drew criticism from the FTC for putting the "Purchase" button for in-game items right next to the "preview styles" button and offering no subsequent purchase confirmation prompt in the case of misplaced clicks. And while Epic introduced an "Undo Purchase" button in July 2019, it was eventually made much less prominent and harder for customers to find.
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2022/12/epic-will-pay-520-mil...
This is a company that should be able to bypass app store restrictions?
Epic also drew criticism from the FTC for putting the "Purchase" button for in-game items right next to the "preview styles" button and offering no subsequent purchase confirmation prompt in the case of misplaced clicks. And while Epic introduced an "Undo Purchase" button in July 2019, it was eventually made much less prominent and harder for customers to find.
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2022/12/epic-will-pay-520-mil...
This is a company that should be able to bypass app store restrictions?
> This is a company that should be able to bypass app store restrictions?
Every company should be able to bypass app store restrictions.
I don't think the question is even framed correctly. Every iPhone owner should be able to bypass app store restrictions. Developers doing so is just a consequence of consumer choice.
Every company should be able to bypass app store restrictions.
I don't think the question is even framed correctly. Every iPhone owner should be able to bypass app store restrictions. Developers doing so is just a consequence of consumer choice.
Sorry, but I prefer the ability to do things like easily reverse fraudulent in app purchases, instantly cancel subscriptions without a hassle, and say no to location tracking without the app in question being allowed to drop functionality if I do so.
Tracking protection can and should be done at the OS level, not at the store level. Even Windows has this.
Canceling a Fortnite subscription is as simple via them as it is on any other storefront: https://www.epicgames.com/help/en-US/fortnite-c5719335176219...
So all that's left is reversing purchases. You can do that through your bank or credit card issuer for any fraudulent purchase, if you want Apple to act as that gatekeeper instead you should make purchases via Apple. Are you saying all vendors should be required to hand 30% of all their revenues to Apple so it is slightly easier for you to reverse a purchase, even though there are already well-tested universal channels for doing it?
I've had to reverse purchases before without dealing with Apple and it has always been a smooth process.
Basically your argument seems to boil down to "my convenience justifies a 30% tax on all app developers". Are you in favor of moves like Apple requiring a 30% tax on IRL event tickets sold via services like Facebook, even though Apple provides no services to the live event operator other than payment processing? Apple even prohibited Facebook from disclosing the tax's existence.
Canceling a Fortnite subscription is as simple via them as it is on any other storefront: https://www.epicgames.com/help/en-US/fortnite-c5719335176219...
So all that's left is reversing purchases. You can do that through your bank or credit card issuer for any fraudulent purchase, if you want Apple to act as that gatekeeper instead you should make purchases via Apple. Are you saying all vendors should be required to hand 30% of all their revenues to Apple so it is slightly easier for you to reverse a purchase, even though there are already well-tested universal channels for doing it?
I've had to reverse purchases before without dealing with Apple and it has always been a smooth process.
Basically your argument seems to boil down to "my convenience justifies a 30% tax on all app developers". Are you in favor of moves like Apple requiring a 30% tax on IRL event tickets sold via services like Facebook, even though Apple provides no services to the live event operator other than payment processing? Apple even prohibited Facebook from disclosing the tax's existence.
> Tracking protection can and should be done at the OS level
How does the OS force an app not to disable functionality if you refuse to allow tracking?
>Canceling a Fortnite subscription is as simple via them as it is on any other storefront
Are we pretending that there is no such thing as a company that makes cancelling a subscription as difficult as possible?
>You can do that through your bank or credit card issuer for any fraudulent purchase
If you read the article linked above, one of the reasons Epic was fined half a billion dollars was that anyone who got their credit card issuer to reverse fraudulent purchases found that Epic banned accounts for that.
You seem to be ignoring reality here.
How does the OS force an app not to disable functionality if you refuse to allow tracking?
>Canceling a Fortnite subscription is as simple via them as it is on any other storefront
Are we pretending that there is no such thing as a company that makes cancelling a subscription as difficult as possible?
>You can do that through your bank or credit card issuer for any fraudulent purchase
If you read the article linked above, one of the reasons Epic was fined half a billion dollars was that anyone who got their credit card issuer to reverse fraudulent purchases found that Epic banned accounts for that.
You seem to be ignoring reality here.
They did get their money back, so that point still stands. They just happened to have their accounts banned for this.
However, this situation is likely due to corporate America's toxicity towards chargebacks which are commonly issued due to the corporation's incompetence or malice.
However, this situation is likely due to corporate America's toxicity towards chargebacks which are commonly issued due to the corporation's incompetence or malice.
No, the point would stand if you could get a refund, cancel subscriptions, and withhold personal data from app developers without retaliation.
The app store allows these sorts of things today.
If you have other priorities, other device options exist.
The app store allows these sorts of things today.
If you have other priorities, other device options exist.
> If you have other priorities, other device options exist.
There are a number of factors and tradeoffs involved in deciding whether or not to buy an iPhone. Let's not pretend it all comes down to one and only one thing.
Not to mention that Android sideloading is kind of crappy and limited. Much more limited than Mac or Windows "sideloading". People seem to forget that Epic is suing Google too.
There are a number of factors and tradeoffs involved in deciding whether or not to buy an iPhone. Let's not pretend it all comes down to one and only one thing.
Not to mention that Android sideloading is kind of crappy and limited. Much more limited than Mac or Windows "sideloading". People seem to forget that Epic is suing Google too.
I remain unconvinced that you have a point here. Perhaps you could offer some specifics?
I prefer to deal with a platform that puts the interests of the customer ahead of the interests of the vendor.
I prefer to deal with a platform that puts the interests of the customer ahead of the interests of the vendor.
> I remain unconvinced that you have a point here. Perhaps you could offer some specifics?
Surely you're not claiming that literally the only reason to buy a $799.00 iPhone is to get a $7.99 refund on an IAP? I suspect that you yourself can think of other reasons.
Design? Durability? Features? Technology? Compatibility/Ecosystem? I mean, what's the reason to buy an Apple Mac, which isn't locked down to the App Store?
In my personal opinion, the crApp Store is the worst part of iPhone, not the best part.
> I prefer to deal with a platform that puts the interests of the customer ahead of the interests of the vendor.
Let me know if you find one LOL.
Surely you're not claiming that literally the only reason to buy a $799.00 iPhone is to get a $7.99 refund on an IAP? I suspect that you yourself can think of other reasons.
Design? Durability? Features? Technology? Compatibility/Ecosystem? I mean, what's the reason to buy an Apple Mac, which isn't locked down to the App Store?
In my personal opinion, the crApp Store is the worst part of iPhone, not the best part.
> I prefer to deal with a platform that puts the interests of the customer ahead of the interests of the vendor.
Let me know if you find one LOL.
Good. It is also time to do the same to TikTok and fine them for abusing the privacy of its users in the billions of dollars.
They have been caught once [0] and have been caught again this year [1] and generally have lied about accessing the sensitive data of it's own users [2], [3], [4]. Clearly the fines in [0] and [1] are extremely low and the fine must increase in the billions since these are repeated privacy violations and haven't learned anything from it.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/14/technology/tiktok-kids-pr...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/26/technology/tiktok-childre...
[2] https://futurism.com/tiktok-spy-locations-specific-americans
[3] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/emilybakerwhite/tiktok-...
[4] https://techcrunch.com/2021/06/03/tiktok-just-gave-itself-pe...
They have been caught once [0] and have been caught again this year [1] and generally have lied about accessing the sensitive data of it's own users [2], [3], [4]. Clearly the fines in [0] and [1] are extremely low and the fine must increase in the billions since these are repeated privacy violations and haven't learned anything from it.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/14/technology/tiktok-kids-pr...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/26/technology/tiktok-childre...
[2] https://futurism.com/tiktok-spy-locations-specific-americans
[3] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/emilybakerwhite/tiktok-...
[4] https://techcrunch.com/2021/06/03/tiktok-just-gave-itself-pe...
Fortnite made 4 billion
Each
Year
You think that will change future behavior?
I doubt it.
Each
Year
You think that will change future behavior?
I doubt it.
$520M is a pinch, I can assure you it will change their behaviour in some ways.
I worked at a company where this happened, the legal polices that came afterwards were actually prohibitive. We couldn't shit without a lawyer.
CEOs have bosses and they don't like to lose money like this - it's a 'headline' loss as well, making it feel worse.
What remains to be seen is the nature of the change because so often it's just an over/under or 'bad' reaction, rarely do they get it right unfortunately.
I worked at a company where this happened, the legal polices that came afterwards were actually prohibitive. We couldn't shit without a lawyer.
CEOs have bosses and they don't like to lose money like this - it's a 'headline' loss as well, making it feel worse.
What remains to be seen is the nature of the change because so often it's just an over/under or 'bad' reaction, rarely do they get it right unfortunately.
They may have already made the changes. I started playing again and I've found they're pretty damn fair with pricing. You can "earn" the currency to buy the skins. I never really buy much though but at least it feels fair.
I also never got "confused" about purchasing things but this is 2022 UI/UX.
I also never got "confused" about purchasing things but this is 2022 UI/UX.
It has to be 'fair and obvious' to the reptilian brain.
We are all busy. We don't have time to learn where all the buttons are, what leads to what.
I see my elderly parents confused and bewildered.
Now I see myself bewildered on new apps that I just don't care to bother to learn.
Even Skype - the UI changes so often, every time I use it, I don't know WTF is going on. I can't find how to make the call, put on hold.
On my iPhone if I get a call while a call is incoming, I'm immediately pressed to 'MAKE A DECISION NOW!' with a bewildering array of choices while an alarm and buzzer says 'HURRY!'.
When am I supposed to learn how all of that works? By 'practising' incoming calls?
Technology is exploding, it's becoming too much for all of us - trust me there will come a time where you 'do not give a nut' about learning the UX for the next new thing, and then you're in trouble.
Given this I think we need to rethink UI a bit or stick to first principles.
And anything that involves privacy or money has to stick to those principles.
We are all busy. We don't have time to learn where all the buttons are, what leads to what.
I see my elderly parents confused and bewildered.
Now I see myself bewildered on new apps that I just don't care to bother to learn.
Even Skype - the UI changes so often, every time I use it, I don't know WTF is going on. I can't find how to make the call, put on hold.
On my iPhone if I get a call while a call is incoming, I'm immediately pressed to 'MAKE A DECISION NOW!' with a bewildering array of choices while an alarm and buzzer says 'HURRY!'.
When am I supposed to learn how all of that works? By 'practising' incoming calls?
Technology is exploding, it's becoming too much for all of us - trust me there will come a time where you 'do not give a nut' about learning the UX for the next new thing, and then you're in trouble.
Given this I think we need to rethink UI a bit or stick to first principles.
And anything that involves privacy or money has to stick to those principles.
That's the whole point. They can afford the fine, especially in the billions of dollars just like what Facebook has done for repeat violations and it should be the standard fine for billion-dollar companies.
This kind of stuff is just the tip of the iceberg in the gaming industry. I really hope someone takes a close look at gacha and unregulated gambling (e.g. CS:GO skins gambling) soon.
Privacy part, sure if true. I'd argue it doesn't make sense to charge them more than what Google paid, which used the data for ads. Epic I'd imagine uses the data more for tracking dau and less nasty reasons.
For the second part of tricking millions of players into making unintended purchases, idk about this one. In Fortnite for example, it's pretty transparent when you are paying real money. You either buy v-bucks to then purchase skins. Or you buy the season pass once and it's clear real money is involved. Anytime I talk with kids, it seems like they are fully aware it takes real money to buy them and they are either saving up or asking their parents for b-day/Christmas to get v-bucks or the season pass.
For the second part of tricking millions of players into making unintended purchases, idk about this one. In Fortnite for example, it's pretty transparent when you are paying real money. You either buy v-bucks to then purchase skins. Or you buy the season pass once and it's clear real money is involved. Anytime I talk with kids, it seems like they are fully aware it takes real money to buy them and they are either saving up or asking their parents for b-day/Christmas to get v-bucks or the season pass.
Wait until FTC find about Diablo Immortal.
Really a good start, but if they are serious about doing something they should start looking at other companies too, and put in place big fines if you continue to implement such patterns in your games.
Don't even get me started on loot boxes and their gambling patterns, I have no sympathy for companies using such practices, and they deserve every single fine and a bit more.
Really a good start, but if they are serious about doing something they should start looking at other companies too, and put in place big fines if you continue to implement such patterns in your games.
Don't even get me started on loot boxes and their gambling patterns, I have no sympathy for companies using such practices, and they deserve every single fine and a bit more.
> Wait until FTC find about Diablo Immortal.
While I'm sure it's been discussed to death already, if anyone isn't familiar with the predatory design of Diablo Immortal I'd recommend this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o17lBUZgjTs
While I'm sure it's been discussed to death already, if anyone isn't familiar with the predatory design of Diablo Immortal I'd recommend this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o17lBUZgjTs
Epic’s own PR statement on this is worth a read https://www.epicgames.com/site/en-US/news/epic-ftc-settlemen...
There are so many immidiate contractions in this thing it makes my head spin.
Like one section here says "no loot boxes since 2019 and never gambling"
Loot boxes are gambling.
"We respect our players by making our game pay to win"
But when we breed a culture of bullying and use behavioral science to get you to purchase cosmetics, that's fine.
Slimy, the whole game industry is slimy.
Like one section here says "no loot boxes since 2019 and never gambling"
Loot boxes are gambling.
"We respect our players by making our game pay to win"
But when we breed a culture of bullying and use behavioral science to get you to purchase cosmetics, that's fine.
Slimy, the whole game industry is slimy.
Loot boxes are generally not considered gambling because you don't wager anything and don't win money. They are very much like a kids version of gambling though!
[deleted]
I would say that anything using skinner's box style methods to encourage people to repeat an action, and when there is money involved in that process at all, for example if you can buy the results of the loot boxes or you can buy the loot boxes themselves, it's gambling.
Epic allowed you to purchase loot boxes and get a random chance to get the thing you wanted as a result.
If it's something you can't pay for and it's intended to be a part of the way the game works, it's not intended to push you into spending money or anything like that, that's fine. Loot boxes are fun at the end of the day. That's not what this was though, this was gambling.
Epic allowed you to purchase loot boxes and get a random chance to get the thing you wanted as a result.
If it's something you can't pay for and it's intended to be a part of the way the game works, it's not intended to push you into spending money or anything like that, that's fine. Loot boxes are fun at the end of the day. That's not what this was though, this was gambling.
It's about the legal definition of gambling rather than the human understanding of it.
It's slimy, but per the legal definition, it isn't gambling.
Should it be illegal? personally, I think if it's targetted at children then yes.
It's slimy, but per the legal definition, it isn't gambling.
Should it be illegal? personally, I think if it's targetted at children then yes.
Hopefully FTC is eventually taking action against Adobe as well.
Shitty company gets caught doing shitty things. Not surprised.
and no speaking of 10tonn elefant, apple
josephd79(3)
Bud(1)
> That lawsuit also accused the company of illegally enabling real-time voice and text chat communications for children and teens in the game by default.
So voice chat must now be turned off by default for all children across America? How on earth is this supposed to be policed? Should everyone playing a game be required to upload ID? And what is the gate between on and off by default? A single button press?
This one doesn't make any sense to me. Voice chat is a staple of online games. Having a core feature included in a game by default is common sense.