Hacker News Reader

Comment by Dalewyn | Hacker News Reader

I think this is a good thing in principle because there is no way pricing transparency is ever a bad thing.

But I think this will inadvertantly lead to an overall increase in prices, probably not intended by the people pursuing this.

Why? Because most of these in-game currencies are sold in packs of varying sizes and the larger packs are usually cheaper per-currency than smaller packs. A volume discount.

Selling the currency like this means the euro value of a single unit of currency is variable, which obviously cannot be reconciled with a requirement to peg a specific euro price onto the actual goods thereof.

So assuming this action is successful, we'll probably see an end to the volume discount with large packs becoming sold at the same euro-per-currency pricing as small packs, and a currency-to-euro conversion printed on the actual goods next to the price in currency.

View on HN

Most all "real-world" stores offer discounts for buying more things at once. Just think of all of the "buy 2 get the 3rd free" etc. deals. Changing the currency from virtual to "real" does nothing to change that.

Showing the "real" cost should DECREASE the cost because when people see it in terms that they use day to day it feels like it's more expensive, so they are more likely to spend less. This would decrease profits for these video games.

The more likely unintended, if you can call it that, outcome would be that less games are solely free to play, relying exclusively on in-game cosmetic transactions.

As I understand it, in-game currencies were invented to work around various laws around monetization, especially in Japan.

I'm quite confident that whatever legislation they pass will only motivate other workarounds that make the problem worse for everyone involved.

Except the politicians, of course (do they count as people?).

There are some practical benefits to doing things this way, for both the game and the players.

Namely in that the in-game currency, not ackshually being real money, can be provided as rewards during normal gameplay and distributed by the devs during events, campaigns and promotions, or for compensation ("apologems") without complicated bureaucratic tax work for both devs and players.

I also think it's just tacky seeing actual dollar/yen/pound/euro signs flying around when you're trying to just enjoy yourself, which an in-game currency nicely avoids.

None of this to say the pricing being opaque isn't a problem of course, because it is and I reiterate that I agree with the legal action here in the interests of consumers.

There's already price inflation.

Let's do a 1 cent to 1 Bullshit Buck scenario.

You want to buy that sweet thing that costs 1600 Bullshit Bucks? Too bad, you can only buy 2000 Bullshit Bucks at a time. Now you have 400 Bullshit Bucks that you can't do anything with, because nothing in the game store is that cheap. So you either have to buy MORE currency and hope that you can purchase something that will even things out, or you basically just handed the company $4.

As a whale who buys probably far too much in Fate/Grand Order, Princess Connect! Re:Dive, and Fire Emblem Heroes I just write it off as a discount for future me because I'll just buy more later anyway. :V

I say this with love, but that sounds like addiction and I hope you will seek out therapy in the future, or at least consider resources such as healthygamer_gg

I keep a journal of my spending there since I know it can be addicting. I usually spend somewhere in the neighbourhood of $2000~$2500 annually on them overall, which sounds like a lot but actually isn't when averaged out. As hobbies go I feel it's on the cheap side; I spend more just on groceries and gas each month.

The spending comes strictly from my entertainment budget, for obvious reasons.

The "leftovers" from my purchases truly don't bother me since I'll use them later anyway as I buy more.

ok but that whole amount of money is a scam you're paying to scammers

A scam implies an element of deception and malice, which is not the case.

The games are clear in what they sell (particularly Fire Emblem Heroes after they got burned once by the players). I am acutely aware what I am buying, and what I can get with them. I am happy with the experience the games provide me as a whole, else I wouldn't be playing them for the better part of a decade straight and paying them my money.

So no, the games I cited aren't scammers. You are welcome to not like the business model, but calling them scammers is unwarranted.

"We shouldn't regulate something bad because it could get worse" is such an American take, I have a hard time even responding. You wouldn't usually think like that in any other scenario except in politics. Of course something should be done about a predatory industry, that mainly relies on very few people with highly addictive personality/circumstances.

If there are any loopholes left they can be closed next year, but effectively playing with money should be treated like gambling is. Because that's exactly what it is.

I did not say this should not be done, actually I said the opposite but also that the law of unintended consequences should be respected.

Okay to be fair I can see how you could read it that way, but it isn't very obvious to me even now.

"We should regulate it because I dislike it" is such a European take. And I say this as a European. No wonder our economies are stagnating.

I like F2P games. I know it's hard for someone born rich to understand this, but not everyone could afford something like World of Warcraft's $60 buy-in price with a $15 monthly subscription fee.

You can argue whether gambling should be allowed, restricted of banned altogether, but you'll have a hard time convincing me that this isn't (ab)using the same weaknesses in our brains.

> not everyone could afford something like World of Warcraft's $60 buy-in price with a $15 monthly subscription

There are plenty of much cheaper and even free games that aren't employing these abusive psychological tactics. In fact they've pretty much always been there, in contrast to this newer development of microtransaction over the last 10 years.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com