BMW Now Using Microtransactions

[thebobmaster]

I feel like this should be an Onion headline, but no, it's real. $15 a month for heated seats, $10 a month for high beam assist, and various others.


ETA: Sorry, 15 POUNDS a month, which is $18.

ETA 2: Apparently, this is only in certain parts of the world, like Korea and the UK, and is basically a secondary purchasing option rather than outright buying the packages, but it's still dumb, so I'm not deleting this.

 

[Elvis Starburst]

Ah fuck, here we go

 

[Chimpzy]

Behold the future

 

[Xprimentyl]

What next? Restaurants will sell you a meal, but plates and utensils cost extra? I say we as consumers fight back and start being as petty as some of these industries want to be; let them see just how absurd and unreasonable they're being. Chris Rock had the right idea back in the '80s:

 

[dreng3]

What next? Restaurants will sell you a meal, but plates and utensils cost extra?

Seating charges are a thing in some places, so the better question is whether some restaurants would allow you to eat while not seated.

 

[Baffle]

Same as the shit Cricut tried to pull with their machines. Do companies still think there's no such thing as bad publicity or something?

 

[BrawlMan]

I feel like this should be an Onion headline, but no, it's real. $15 a month for heated seats, $10 a month for high beam assist, and various others.


ETA: Sorry, 15 POUNDS a month, which is $18.

ETA 2: Apparently, this is only in certain parts of the world, like Korea and the UK, and is basically a secondary purchasing option rather than outright buying the packages, but it's still dumb, so I'm not deleting this.

Give them any inch, and they'll go a 1000 miles lying down spike strips on the way over!

​

Behold the future

​

 

[Chimpzy]

Do companies still think there's no such thing as bad publicity or something?

Does that matter? They're doing this because they believe they'll get away with it, and they're probably right.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Can't wait to see this brought to its logical conclusion.

"Honey, there's kids playing on the street ahead. Slow down."
"We're sorry, but it appears that your brake subscription has expired. Please input your credit card number...."

 

[Baffle]

Does that matter? They're doing this because they believe they'll get away with it, and they're probably right.

Maybe. Cricut did have to walk it back, but obv very different target markets. Saying that, there's a lot more alternatives to a BMW than to a Cricut.

 

[Elijin]

Those are finance options for optional extras, not a monthly subscription service.

There are questions about the fact these days a lot of optional extras are essentially software patches instead of physical changes, but that's a different conversation.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

While it's hard to care about what rich fuckwads have as available options for their kunt-mobiles, it's always the shit like this trickles down to us folk before anything else.

 

[BrawlMan]

​

 

[Agema]

Those are finance options for optional extras, not a monthly subscription service.

There are questions about the fact these days a lot of optional extras are essentially software patches instead of physical changes, but that's a different conversation.

A seat heating system costs money to make and put in a car. Should I be de facto paying for a seat heating system installed in my car that I don't use? Or, given the likely economics of it all, should someone else be paying for the seat heating system in my car I don't use because they use theirs?

And the ultimate bottom line: they're doing this because it makes them money. If it is economically valuable for them, then it's the customer losing out.

 

[Bedinsis]

That thing about people forgetting to cancel their subscriptions gave me an idea:

No matter what we do, subscriptions will in some instances be the best model for monetization. Therefore they will remain in some form. It is however enforced via online verification with the service provider, so the subscription will involve contact with the customer, often via online monitoring.

Why not force the companies via law to contact users that they notice have not used their service for a while with a reminder that they might want to cancel their service? Or force companies via law to offer a "If not used for X number of days, the subscription is cancelled automatically" package?

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Why not force the companies via law to contact users that they notice have not used their service for a while with a reminder that they might want to cancel their service? Or force companies via law to offer a "If not used for X number of days, the subscription is cancelled automatically" package?

Because that hurts profits, and is therefore communism.

 

[Xprimentyl]

That thing about people forgetting to cancel their subscriptions gave me an idea:

No matter what we do, subscriptions will in some instances be the best model for monetization. Therefore they will remain in some form. It is however enforced via online verification with the service provider, so the subscription will involve contact with the customer, often via online monitoring.

Why not force the companies via law to contact users that they notice have not used their service for a while with a reminder that they might want to cancel their service? Or force companies via law to offer a "If not used for X number of days, the subscription is cancelled automatically" package?

Ah, the old "police yourself" mindset. In a perfect world, one might reasonably expect such high ideals, but in the far more capitalistic we actually live in, asking companies to kneecap themselves when an actively paying customer isn't using the service they're paying for is a bit like asking the lion to let the slowest and weakest of the herd of gazelles she's preying on go. It's basically free money. A paying, inactive customer isn't calling for customer service. They're not asking for price adjustments or upgrades. They're not complaining to others driving off business.

I think the better solution would be to disallow autopayment on subscription-based services. Not to be confused with quick pay where your billing info is saved and you simply have to go in and allow a payment to go through; that's fine. But if i didn't use Netflix, and got an email every month asking me to confirm or deny an upcoming payment, I'd probably be more cognizant of what I need and don't need to pay for.

 

[Bedinsis]

Ah, the old "police yourself" mindset. In a perfect world, one might reasonably expect such high ideals, but in the far more capitalistic we actually live in, asking companies to kneecap themselves when an actively paying customer isn't using the service they're paying for is a bit like asking the lion to let the slowest and weakest of the herd of gazelles she's preying on go. It's basically free money. A paying, inactive customer isn't calling for customer service. They're not asking for price adjustments or upgrades. They're not complaining to others driving off business.

Hence why I suggested enforcing it via law. Which is not "asking companies to kneecap themselves", it is "forcing companies to kneecap themselves".

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Hence why I suggested enforcing it via law. Which is not "asking companies to kneecap themselves", it is "forcing companies to kneecap themselves".

Take their kneecaps away and sell them a kneecap subscription.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Hence why I suggested enforcing it via law. Which is not "asking companies to kneecap themselves", it is "forcing companies to kneecap themselves".

That'd be an uphill battle trying to legislate companies being responsible for consumers' money for them.