U.S. Congressman Wants to Prevent Kids from Buying Smurfberries

[kouriichi]

So..... Parents that dont moderate theyer children, or teach them the value of a dollar arnt at fault? Oh no. The simple fact that they allow access to theyer credit cards to theyer kids instantly gets them off the hook and makes it the companys fault!

 

[Kamehapa]

No. Absolutely not.

Parents, RAISE YOUR CHILDREN YOURSELF! Learn about PC's, yourself! Just because you're ignorant, lazy, busy, stupid, complacent, and/or simply aloof of what your children do from day to day, is NOT a reason for the government to step in and do it for you. Hold parents responsible, make them deal with these companies, do not hold their hands and do it for them.

You do realize this is a smurf game targeted at kids beneath the age of 10?

The parents should not have to montitor their kids when they are playing such games. They should be able to take it for granted that their kids won't find them self's in harms way while playing a fucking smurfs game.

You do realize I don't care, right? Kids don't buy themselves electronics, kids don't pay their own bills, kids don't own their own homes, kids don't buy their own food etc... etc... etc.. Parents are responsible for their children, not the Government, and not the rest of society. I feel real bad that someone got charged $1400 for smurfberries, but, them's the breaks when you enter in your card information without learning what it is you're buying into first, now isn't it? And by the way, the child wasn't in harms way, they were simply spending cash without realizing it. Usually, the parents are around to help the child understand the more complex aspects of day to day life. In this case, the parent screwed up, and learned the hard way.

Just because parents don't take the time and effort to research what their children do, doesn't mean it's a reason to increase government's roll in peoples lives.

Not sure whether I should take your opinions at face value, seeing as one of your recently awarded Badges is 'Troll', but it IS the governments responsability to ensure that unfair business practices are regulated. In my opinion this IS an unfair business practice, if you have disagree and believe it is fair fine, but there is clearly ground where the government COULD step in.

 

[Kamehapa]

Not sure whether I should take your opinions at face value, seeing as one of your recently awarded Badges is 'Troll', but it IS the governements responsability to ensure that unfair business practices are regulated. In my opinion this IS an unfair business practice, if you have disagree and believe it is fair fine, but there is clearly ground where the government COULD step in.

Take it, or don't, I could honestly care less what you think of my intentions. I'm not here to prove anything to you, simply voice my opinion on the matter. As someone who pays taxes, and understands the current economic climate, adding regulation to something that should be up to the parents, is stupid and needless waste of money and effort on the side of the government. It takes little to no time to research a game before you put it into your childs hands. It takes little to no time to realize certain aspects of it cost money. Unsupervised internet access is a failure on the part of the parents. Not the Federal Government.

On the same hand, lawsuits also cost money. While it hasn't resulted in this yet, if a company is not as willing to return payment for an accident like this, it very easily could happen.

And while you may be gung-ho about a lack of parental supervision, even if the parents didn't research the game, it is neglegent for the company to make transactions for a game designed PRIMARILY for children to be so easy that well... a child could do it. Now, if the child had had to steal a credit card or a PIN number I would feel differently, but this story seems to portray it was a simple "DO YOU WANT TO BUY X?" message. To me, that appears as if they are almost EXPECTING these children to haphazardly and ignorantly make these purchases, and a business model around that does infact need to be regulated.

 

[Crazed_Puppeteer]

My understanding is that the smurfberries in question can cost around $60 a barrow.

The $99 wagon is the one people are most shocked about.

Is a virtual smurf wagon really worth that amount of money? I see the point that the kid and parents should have known better about DLC that is similar to this, but even I wasn't aware of a wagon that was worth this amount of money (and I consider myself to be educated in these types of transactions). Plus I have family that didn't fully grasp what certain button presses can do (such as this option lets you do flamethrower, this option deletes the whole game, this option lets you walk forward) until they were a few years older than the girl at question. I'm all for trying to regulate DLC and see how DLC is helpful to a game, but education only goes so far for younger gamers, and even with education this is nothing but this is a scam.

 

[Kamehapa]

Snip

Snip

Snip

Which is why Capcom added additional layers of 'this costs actual money' to the game. If your kid can't read at 10, you may as well put it down, it's not going to get very far in life...well, maybe prostitution. Additionally, this mother got a refund. Again, your argument is just not really very valid.

Yes, but only after the issue arose. What I am saying is that there should be a regulated standard on how to address the issue of transaction in Childrens games rather than have it decided in an abritrary way after the problem arises, so companies in the future know the basic standard they should maintain so that this does not become an issue in the future. I am not suggesting that the all money transactions have to go through the government, just that the government should set a standard for how it should be done.

 

[Optimystic]

Do we call this one SmurfGate, or SmurfberryGate?

Halp, escapist

 

[Dastardly]

snip

While I don't think legislation will be required, I'm in complete agreement that this needs to be looked into. It's similar to that kid with the bajillion dollar XBL bill, in that it is far too easy for kids to access and misinterpret these sorts of transactions.

And the fact is, the parents as consumers may not be fully aware of these risks. Part of this process is educating the consumer before you just toss out the, "Oh, it's the parent's job" line. And believe me, I'm usually the loudest to scream that bit. In this case, I think the tech is new enough that some more layers of warnings/disclaimers/verification are in order.

Think of it this way: You just bought a house. The people selling you the house told you all of the major selling points, and they gave you the chance to ask questions. You asked questions about things you might consider normal in a house. Everything seemed fine, you bought the house. Later on, you come to find out there's a secret door in the basement that lets snakes into the house.

The seller was aware, but failed to mention this. You weren't aware, and you "could" have asked, but who on earth would think to ask, "Hey, is there a secret door that lets snakes in?" In this case, the seller would have to either:

1. Prove he/she was unaware of the door, but then still fix it or refund enough money for you to get it fixed.
2. Admit he/she knew about it and provide you a chance to revisit this entire transaction.
3. In the future, take steps to ensure that similar "features" are well-documented in the paperwork.

The fact that these apps don't ask for codes/passwords/etc. when it comes to making these little purchases is not something many people fully realize yet. The companies know full well what they're doing: They're taking advantage of impulse-disguised-as-convenience purchases on behalf of adults. But they also have a responsibility to directly inform the customer of the potential security risks.

Or, better yet, just attach a password or PIN to each transaction before accessing saved credit card information. How hard would that be?

 

[luckycharms8282]

Anyone else notice that the vast majority of these free-to-play games are bad? Im sure that's probably why they're free to play.

 

[Thedarkness77]

First off who gives thier kids an 800 dollar ipad and secound how the hell does Apple not know in game items are being charged at $99 dollar this is shame on both sides.

 

[Cobaltmotari]

I love it how they're making a big fuss about the whole issue when there's a simple-to-reach function on the iPhone and iPad marked "Disable In-app purchases" which people are ignoring entirely. Well, alright. SOME people.

Anyone else notice that the vast majority of these free-to-play games are bad? Im sure that's probably why they're free to play.

Understatement of the decade! Too many Appstore developers seem to have a hard time remembering the difference between "MMORPG" and "Mafia Wars Ripoff". I know it's a successful formula, but I've had enough of them on facebook, and I've had enough of them on the Appstore.

 

[Damiv]

Step 1: Go into your settings.
Step 2: Select "Disable In-App purchases"
Step 3: Tell others how not to be retarded.
Step 4: Win!

 

[Alphakirby]

Screw warning labels, this simply should not be possible, they are selling imaginary consumables for $99 to kids... they are worse then a mother f*ing crack dealer!

Blame Capcom's mobile division, they seem to make a lot of mistakes, or do I have to bring MaXsplosion up again

 

[zehydra]

I don't particularly mind, since I despise it when games have perks that you can buy for real money. What ends up happening, is that in order to have the best things in that game, people just pay money for, making the game just a contest of who can give the most money to ____ company.

 

[Treaos Serrare]

here's a stupid question, why the sweet unholy fuck did anyone allow an 8-year-old to play with an I-pad at all? maybe kids aren't prone to breaking shit like they used to(they are though if the little bastards i see running full pelt through my store are any indication)but still those things cost a good bit to just had to little timmy and say go play

 

[SilentHunter7]

I think some sort of standardized warning label for transactions that will cost real world money is necessary - otherwise developers could just mislead consumers too easily. A mandatory warning would likely reduce accidental and misinformed purchases.

Just make the user input his credit card information every time he wants to make a transaction. Seems simple. A lot of companies store information to make it easier for customers to make transactions (read: give customers less time to think twice about what they're spending their money on). Unfortunately this has the nasty side effect of giving anyone who has access to the game account access to your credit card.

Trust me I know all about this crap. I set up an Xbox Live account for my nephew for his birthday, not figuring they'd fucking store my account info for points transactions, and all he had to do was push a button to buy 5000 points worth of DLC and bad indie games. It wasn't his fault. He had no idea that 'add points' equated to 'drain uncle's bank account.' Though I did scold him for it: $50 is a lot of money when you're in college.

Thankfully I don't keep much in my debit account, and I opted out of overdraft protection. My bank said 'lol no' when he hit the account limit. There really should be regulations against things like that.

A warning saying that anyone with access to the game account can make purchases with any credit card you ever used is the very least they can do.

 

[duchaked]

just don't link a kid's game to your credit card...like if you make a purchase for them yay but don't leave it in the account
if it were possible to do so that is...it should be!

 

[Kingsnake661]

Yeah, there is something wrong with the general design of that game which should be addressed, but the government is definitely the wrong entity to address it.

Eh, isn't this how it ususally works. I mean, i'm far from an expert on the subject, but, it seems to me, that compines will try and get away with whatever they can, for as long as they can, until the goverment starts to look into their practices, and then, in an effort to avoid that, they accually start to selfregulate.

Isn't it the whole reason we got a movie rating system, so the goverment wouldn't do it. Same with game rating, and prolly a bunch of other stuff if i had to guess.

So maybe the threat of goverment involvement will reigin in game makers a bit.

My understanding is that the smurfberries in question can cost around $60 a barrow.

The $99 wagon is the one people are most shocked about.

I was alittle shocked to see anything for sale in a childs game over 10 bucks frankly. The stuff over and above that was jawdroping. And the idea you can by something in a free game that costs nearly as much as 2 new triple a games... boggles the mind.

I'm sorry, i'm having a hard time feeling sorry for gamemakers who pull crap like this. Outside of not really being a huge fan of micro transaction in the first place, and a general distaste for the new drug dealer approuch to gaming...(here, try this for free kid.. but you want the good stuff... it's going to cost...) I almost hope they do do something, at the very least put some fear into gamemakers to get them to toe the line alittle more.