Japanese Youth Face Game Spending Limits

[Andy Chalk]

Japanese Youth Face Game Spending Limits

Japanese game companies are putting restrictions on teenage spending in social games.

Facing "growing calls" for action, major Japanese social and mobile game companies DeNA Co [http://gree-corp.com/]. have agreed to set limits on what "young" gamers can spend on in-game purchases each month. Beginning today, Gree will impose a monthly spending cap of ¥10,000 ($124) on gamers aged 16 to 19, while those under 15 will be limited to half that amount; DeNA will put similar limits in place in June, but its ¥10,000 cap will apply only to gamers aged 16 and 17.

The lack of spending limits [and, one might suggest, parental oversight] is apparently a real problem in Japan, where according to The Japan Times [http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nb20120425a4.html], "young customers tend to spend tens of thousands of yen a month" on mobile games. Four other social gaming companies - NHN Japan Corp., CyberAgent Inc., Dwango Co. and Mixi Inc. - also took part in a "joint committee" set up to examine the issue in March, but have not yet announced plans for similar limits of their own.

It's hard to say how bad the situation actually is, especially given how easily the combination of "young people" and videogames can add up to hysteria and exaggeration, but concerns about kids blowing boatloads boatloads of money on mobile games isn't limited to Japan. Apple reportedly gave Capcom a stern talking-to about filed suit [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/107815-Apple-Gives-Capcom-a-Smurfberry-Crunch] against Facebook over its policies regarding the purchase of Facebook credits by underage gamers.


Permalink

 

[Seventh Actuality]

That's a shitload more than anyone should be spending on these things anyway. I'm not normally in favour of anything like this (especially because of the difficulty saying how much is a real problem and how much is hysteria), but that's a pretty reasonable restriction.

 

[Dastardly]

Japanese Youth Face Game Spending Limits

Even in America, we limit the ability of cigarette manufacturers to market an addictive product -- especially in areas and ways that might appeal to children.

This particular type of video game is designed specifically to take advantage of the cognitive mechanisms that power addiction. So are casinos (which we also keep kid-free). I see nothing wrong with limiting the ability of this type of media to directly target kids.

Sure, it ultimately comes down to the decisions of the person playing the game. Sure, we want to promote responsibility. But can't we also admit that companies behind games like this are benefiting from billions of dollars of research into methods of bypassing rational thought to get people to spend irrationally?

Hey, let advertisers use their weapons for as long as they remain legal, but they shouldn't be the only side that's armed. And keep kids out of the fight.

 

[Stealth]

its like the west and mmo

 

[Daemascus]

I already see a problem for this. How will they get the age of those this rule is suppose to limit? If they use one of those "Enter Your Date Of Birth" things like most internet sites use for mature content, this will be a waste of time and money.

 

[Something Amyss]

Even in America, we limit the ability of cigarette manufacturers to market an addictive product -- especially in areas and ways that might appeal to children.

Of course, in America, we don't limit games or other items. In fact, this was kind of my first thought when I read the beginning of the article. Japanese companies are doing something remotely responsible while people ***** about Apple being sued for any semblance of the same.

 

[antipunt]

It's like the lesser evil. No one likes regulation, but sometimes, it does more harm than good, especially with those that have lesser developed prefrontal cortices (not an insult/ science fact).

 

[Sateru]

>_> I hate this so much... They're idiots. They're idiots for listening to morons who can't seem to say no. They shouldn't be forced to control how much their consumers spend money on. That completely goes against the whole idea of capitalism. If the kids are getting money from mummy and daddy, then their fucking parents should be the ones to limit their child's spending, not the cell phone companies! If the brat accumulates their own money through work and spends it on games then... what IS THE BIG FUCKING DEAL? If mommy and daddy wanna ***** about it, then they can, but if they want someone to stop it then they should have the spine to stop their child themselves. :/ It's no different than American Family Moral Ethic groups that state that it's game companies peddling adult video games to their children instead of parents not being fucking responsible for their damn children. Regulation is simply the result of people being whiny lazy assholes who feel that "they can't control themselves" or that "someone should control and regulate unnecessary things that they cannot do themselves like reasonable adults should". It's laziness, and it is a progressive disease.

Then again, it would be even more beneficial if these companies simply stopped peddling to youngster to spend real money for digital data. At the very least, they need to provide options that don't require them to spend any money at all to acquire what they wish or need. :/ So... I guess that it would be best if they simply readjusted things for easier access or simply cease and desist with marketing to little kids in such a medium. Especially frivolous things like smurfberries and other small items and shit.

 

[MetalMagpie]

Even in America, we limit the ability of cigarette manufacturers to market an addictive product -- especially in areas and ways that might appeal to children.

I thought the reason for that was that cigarettes are physically addictive and increase your risk of life-threatening illness? I'm not sure we're at the point yet when something being psychologically addictive and costing you lots of money is considered the same thing.

But I agree with the comparison to gambling. In the UK, advertising gambling services is not restricted, but gambling itself is. (You need to be 18.) Since these sort of games are also an addictive pastime that fleeces money from those short on self-control (i.e. children) it seems reasonable to put some sort of regulation on it.

Perhaps it could be modelled on the system for mobile phone payments in Ireland. No one in Ireland (child or adult) can be charged more than 30 euros a day for Premium SMS services (such as ring-tones or adult chat), which stops companies taking advantage of people with low willpower.

 

[Dastardly]

I thought the reason for that was that cigarettes are physically addictive and increase your risk of life-threatening illness? I'm not sure we're at the point yet when something being psychologically addictive and costing you lots of money is considered the same thing.

It's not meant to be a perfect comparison, but I also think you might be underestimating the impact of so-called "psychological addiction." In cases of this type of addiction, there is still a chemical component -- dopamine and/or serotonin, the brain's pleasure chemicals. Now, the origin of the addiction is psychological, as opposed to something like heroin (clearly chemical), but the mechanism of addiction still revolves around these chemicals.

It's not as dramatic as chemical dependence, but we can't use the word "psychological" to mean "all in your head." As I said, it starts with mental processes that create a habit that then gets out of control, but over time it shifts to a more direct dependence on that habit to create the neurological feeling of well-being: the body adapts to reflect the mind's reality, however warped.

But I agree with the comparison to gambling. In the UK, advertising gambling services is not restricted, but gambling itself is. (You need to be 18.) Since these sort of games are also an addictive pastime that fleeces money from those short on self-control (i.e. children) it seems reasonable to put some sort of regulation on it.

Perhaps it could be modelled on the system for mobile phone payments in Ireland. No one in Ireland (child or adult) can be charged more than 30 euros a day for Premium SMS services (such as ring-tones or adult chat), which stops companies taking advantage of people with low willpower.

I think it's fair. Debt is too often used as the modern analog to slavery. Skeevy companies take advantage of poor folks, because their needs are more urgent, so they're more likely to act on impulse... which means it's easier to get them in your debt. These companies, being profit-driven machines, have no reason not to do this, so any limitations on this must be imposed from the outside (a regulating or legislating body).

And before anyone tries to claim that it's their own damned fault, try being poor. But also, consider how it impacts everyone else. What exactly was it that happened with all the home loans being given to folks that had no business getting a loan, thus leading them to default, thus pretty much throwing us directly into the current economic climate in the US?

 

[Dastardly]

It's like the lesser evil. No one likes regulation, but sometimes, it does more harm than good, especially with those that have lesser developed prefrontal cortices (not an insult/ science fact).

A lot of folks aren't happy when they're informed that their brains haven't fully developed, particularly in the risk-assessment/impulse-control department, until about the age of 24.

 

[wooty]

Well, they are facing a population crisis. They say that most males in Japan are prefering to play video games all night than go out on dates or "procreate". Its getting that way in my area too, my friends are dicks with games now.

That too could be a factor here.

 

[antipunt]

It's like the lesser evil. No one likes regulation, but sometimes, it does more harm than good, especially with those that have lesser developed prefrontal cortices (not an insult/ science fact).

A lot of folks aren't happy when they're informed that their brains haven't fully developed, particularly in the risk-assessment/impulse-control department, until about the age of 24.

My essential reaction to your post

Spoiler

Greetings, fellow neurologist

 

[chadachada123]

It's like the lesser evil. No one likes regulation, but sometimes, it does more harm than good, especially with those that have lesser developed prefrontal cortices (not an insult/ science fact).

It's not like anyone could cry foul here, since it's SELF-regulation, like the ESRB/MPAA and games/movies ratings in the United States. Sure, some kids ***** and moan about it, but as long as it's all self-regulated, I don't see any cause for concern.

 

[ElPatron]

It's like the lesser evil.

Lesser evil?

How is spending 100 bucks on a game any good? It doesn't affect adults, so basically it's not trampling on anyone's freedom.

It's not evil.

A lot of folks aren't happy when they're informed that their brains haven't fully developed, particularly in the risk-assessment/impulse-control department, until about the age of 24.

Everyone is cool about it, but "a lot of folks aren't happy" when someone uses it as an argument to raise drinking/driving/gun ownership/consent age even further.

Trust me, a lot of places on the internet have people spewing the same arguments over and over just to piss people off. Every month.