undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjholman5y ago0 comments

I mean, I'm not necessarily taking a side on GP's claim, but don't be disingenuous.

Should firearms for kids be illegal? Should driving for kids be illegal? Should gambling for kids be illegal? Should starring in porn for kids be illegal? Should data-mining the behaviour of children be illegal? Should paying children to work in mines be illegal?

Obviously the principle would be something along the lines of "games with microtransactions are potentially hazardous to the buyer in a way, or to a degree, such that while we should allow adults to make their own choices, we should protect children from the consequences of being partially-formed minds, and so we should avoid targeting children with that business model". Same as gambling, or selling your PII to get free services, or starring in porn. I'm not saying it's a slam-dunk argument, I'm saying the structure of the argument is obvious and straightforward. And I expect every adult to be at least partially sympathetic to it, even the ones who end the paragraph with "but, on the balance, freedom is more important, so it should not be illegal".

Well. I admit. I mostly agree with GP's claim. But not with high confidence.

0 comments

jsgo5y ago

The way micro transactions work in those games (effectively for skins, special privileges in games, etc.), I think the toy comparison isn’t terribly far off the mark. Guns, starring in porn, working in mines, etc. is extreme in comparison.

Whether it be tycoon games, social adventure games like About Me, Royal High, etc., it’s basically the new form of entertainment for kids. About the time my daughter became generally disinterested in toys was about the time she started liking Roblox.

piva005y ago

A toy for a kid, as fleeting as they can be with new toys, is a physical object that can represent clearly some monetary value.

They know that their parents won't be buying many of them, if they have a lot they can see the toys peppered around and parents can point to those and say "no more toys, you don't play enough with all of the ones we got you already".

A skin, special privileges, etc., are quite abstract concepts for a kid to tie it to a monetary value, they buy a skin, they can use it in game and... That's it, they will want the next fix, a new skin, more privileges, it's a bottomless pit of purely virtual assets that are easy to detach from money.

That's my take at least, from being a kid in the 90s and comparing my experience when I got real toys vs when I got digital toys (MMO subscriptions like Ultima Online, for example). I can't imagine how much harder for my parents it'd have been if instead of a subscription I was asking for them to pay or give me enough allowance to buy every item I wanted in a game. It'd be hell.

jsgo5y ago

True, but in a lot of ways their vbucks/robux/etc. thing is equivalent of anything else that is paid for that has no physical or value going forward. Do I really need to do anything ppv or movies on demand? It's fleeting enjoyment much like those are.

And in the case of Fortnite and Roblox, the games are free so it does make sense to pay at least some into it (there's no such thing as a free lunch) and thankfully none of the things you pay for give the player an advantage so it is mostly what elicits an "I want my avatar to look like this" reaction. Plus, it teaches limits and in the case of my daughter, she weighs what she really wants in the game vs just seeing something shiny. In Adopt Me, that is mostly ride/fly potions for pets she has raised and turned to neon via raising 4 and merging.

I do, however, think there should be limits on it. But I think lessons can be learned from the experience all the same.

jfoster5y ago

Aren't the micro-transactions a bit beside the point? Those seem more harmful to parents' wallets. Surely it's the addictive nature of the games that is more harmful to kids?

If the principle is that anything hazardous for kids should be banned, it makes sense, at least in theory. In practice I think it might change a lot of what is currently considered "part of childhood", though.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsjholman5y ago0 comments

I mean, I'm not necessarily taking a side on GP's claim, but don't be disingenuous.

Well. I admit. I mostly agree with GP's claim. But not with high confidence.

0 comments

jsgo5y ago

piva005y ago

A toy for a kid, as fleeting as they can be with new toys, is a physical object that can represent clearly some monetary value.

jsgo5y ago

I do, however, think there should be limits on it. But I think lessons can be learned from the experience all the same.

jfoster5y ago

Aren't the micro-transactions a bit beside the point? Those seem more harmful to parents' wallets. Surely it's the addictive nature of the games that is more harmful to kids?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse