Federal Trade Commission wants to deprive Smurfs' of berries

[Eri]

There was a rumor last week that Apple was unhappy with Capcom over the way in-app purchases could be made in Smurf's Village. Turns out Apple may have had a very good reason to be upset.

The Federal Trade Commission has announced that it will be investigating the way in which "in-app purchases" can be made via Apple's handheld devices.

It seems FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz is concerned that there is not enough security preventing children from inadvertently spending hundreds of dollars of their parent's money, and will also be looking at the way apps like Smurf's Village appear to be "free" and then aggressively market these in-app purchases.

http://kotaku.com/#!5768918/the-ftc-isnt-very-happy-with-some-iphone-games

While I can't really say I approve of the fairly blatant tactics employed by Capcom, The fault rests with the parents. It is not anyone else's fault that your kid bought hundreds or a few thousand dollars of shit when you're the one who handed him the iPod with your credit card info recently used.

If you don't understand the technology, such as iDevices not requiring a password for 15 minutes after it being recently entered, why are you giving it to your kid when you don't even know how it works?

Responsibility needs to be taken. --Thoughts?

 

[ilspooner]

I thought it said in the first smurf berry story that the purchases were made through Itunes, and not the credit card. Also, you can't blame parents for everything.

 

[MartianWarMachine]

I think... that you have killed the Lich King on 25-man heroic mode.

OT: ...I can't think of anything on-topic to say. Sorry about that. I'll leave this thread alone now...

 

[tomtom94]

I honestly do think that the microtransactions in that game were sufficiently hidden to confuse people.

In general though, yeah, people need to keep a better eye on their credit card details. It's not hard.

 

[Eri]

I thought it said in the first smurf berry story that the purchases were made through Itunes, and not the credit card. Also, you can't blame parents for everything.

They are. iTunes charges your card.

 

[rs101]

It is in part the parents' fault. However, the difference between paying a few cents for a song and spending $100 on a game mechanic fall into two completely different categories. At this stage, it can, and should, be assumed that the bovi is an internet idiot who doesn't read agreements. Should you be able to use an MP3 purchase account to buy large value items? My vote is hell no.

 

[Bobbity]

Perhaps in-app purchases could entertain an extra level of security, on top of the ordinary password, but in general, I agree. Parents need to exert more control over the use of their own credit card details, or teach their children about the importance and value of money. Banning in app purchases takes it too far, even if they are desperate and pathetic cash grabs.

 

[Asuka Soryu]

Sure, parent's should have to take better watch of their children, but mistakes are natural to humans. Parent's can't be their 24/7 and the bigger a family and if both parent's are working, mistakes are bound to happen en mass.

And even then, you can't justify a company taking advantage of kids with the excuse of 'bad parenting'.

 

[ilspooner]

I thought it said in the first smurf berry story that the purchases were made through Itunes, and not the credit card. Also, you can't blame parents for everything.

They are. iTunes charges your card.

Ah. Didn't know that. Never used iTunes. Anyway, maybe it is different in this case.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

I normally love to drop the responsibility square in the parent's lap, buying a kid a game isn't the same as buying them a babysitter, you need to pay attention to what that game is doing.

However, it's not obvious,clear or transparent how these games are selling their extra 'services', and it should be. I'd suggest that, at least, there should be packs of points available, and they should go thru as a regular credit card transaction, with all the security normally needed. I know when I use my card online, I get a secondary check that involves me getting the card out and typing in the number on the signature strip, as well as my chosen online bank password.

So long as the cardholder has to be present at each monetary transaction, that should be enough however.

I don't personally agree with the slightly sneaky methods used to fund these 'free to play' games, along with the aggressive way you're encouraged to buy stuff to keep up with other people, but, it shouldn't be illegal, just made a lot clearer, and impossible for a child to do without the card.

If the kid's using the card, then that's a parent issue, however

I also think refunds should be absolutely offered in the case of obvious abuse, even if it's a mistake and not fraud, minus some reasonable handing and admin fees.

There's no way it costs the games company more than a few bucks to send some kid $500 worth of smurf gear, so it should be reversable. There's no case to say 'well, he ordered the stuff, we sent it, we can't take it back' when it's virtual items.