Apex Legends’ Final Fantasy VII Crossover Prompts Fan Outcry. Players of the battle royale shooter are baffled by the $300+ price for the cosmetics
Apex Legends’ Final Fantasy VII Crossover Prompts Fan Outcry. Players of the battle royale shooter are baffled by the $300+ price for the cosmetics
Players of the battle royale shooter are baffled by the $300+ price for the cosmetics
You're viewing part of a thread.
People should be absolutely free to attempt to manufacture consent
Jesus.
a restriction of that means you’re letting someone else decide what’s best for you.
We ban scams. Identifying and preventing abuses that work is good, actually. Downright necessary. Because it turns out, people are predictably irrational, and some exploitation of that works frighteningly well.
'I want to choose not to get robbed blind' is not compelling.
How do you not hear yourself proposing all this nitpicking legislation? You are staring straight at examples of people being tricked into bullshit... and figure the real problem is a lack of "undo." Nah dude. It's the part where this entire business model is built on tricking people into paying for bullshit.
Tricking them hard enough that they don't regret it is actually commonplace in scams - like already-illegal, selling-a-bridge scams. Some victims get taken for everything, and then come back to the scammers with more money, hoping to try again. Regret is not a meaningful measure of victimization, when human beings will bend over backwards to justify their past decisions. Your brain does it for you.
We ban scams.
Because they're not consensual. A scam (or fraudulent transaction to use actual legal terms) is when you agree on one thing but deliver another. This could be false advertising, or using consent for one purpose (e.g. fix your computer) to so another (clean out their bank account).
That's a very different thing than convincing someone the transaction is a good idea by making the product look enticing or necessary. If you're getting exactly what was promised for the price that was agreed on, it's not a scam.
MTX have nothing to do with scams, you're getting exactly what was advertised and often there's a "try before you buy" setup (i.e. it'll show you what your character looks like with it on).
hoping to try again
Well yeah, because they didn't get what was promised. Whether they think it was a fluke is irrelevant, if you're not getting what was promised, it's a scam.
With MTX, you're getting exactly what was promised, so it's not a scam, it's just a stupid purchase.
When the infomercial promises "a fifty-dollar value!" and delivers the two-dollar pan you paid thirty dollars for, you were still scammed. Belief in value is not value or proof of value. Not even if that belief persists. So long as it's not obviously bullshit... you can remain satisfied.
It's still bullshit.
You, personally, endorse that bullshit. "Absolutely," no less. Corporations should be totally free to harass and manipulate people into saying yes. That's how consent works in the bedroom, right? So long as you don't technically make threats or tell lies, implication and misdirection are completely ethical. If existing laws don't already ban something new - it must be fine.
I reiterate: Jesus.
We can, should, do, and must protect people from outright abuses they'd otherwise gladly fall for. Civilization is a series of other people making decisions that limit you. If you want to buy an unsafe house, tough shit. If you want to advertise Russian roulette, tough shit. Knowing the risks is not a universal excuse for risk. Sometimes we just stop problems before they happen.
On some level you recognize this, or else 'regret for being misled' wouldn't be among your several suggested reasons for partial bans. Not even you can take the absolute stance seriously.
When the infomercial promises “a fifty-dollar value!” and delivers the two-dollar pan you paid thirty dollars for, you were still scammed. Belief in value is not value or proof of value.
I disagree. It would only be a scam if they normally sell for $10, then they jacked up the price to $50 just before the infomercial just so they could "lower" it to $30. But if the item is normally $50, it really doesn't matter what it costs them to make, what matters is if the product performs as advertised.
And no, I don't endorse it, but merely accept it as a part of a free market.
implication and misdirection are completely ethical
Ethics and law are two completely different things. It may be ethical to steal from the rich and give to the poor, but that should also be illegal.
That said, implication and misdirection can constitute a threat. When it comes to something like rape, there is an actual, tangible relationship to account for, as well as the idea of "implied consent" (lack of resistance), which is quite at odds in a market situation where the individual needs to take action to make a poor choice.
IMO, you can't really be a victim if you consented and took action in making a decision. Clicking "buy" is very different from not shouting "no" (and potentially running from the house).
If you want to buy an unsafe house,
Then that should be my right. However, I could see authorities preventing me from having children or unaware adults enter the house, because they did not consent to the risk and rightly expect houses they are welcomed into to be up to code.
We should only step in, imo, if an innocent party is at risk. But if they're all consenting adults and there's little to no risk to innocent bystanders, I don't think that interaction should be illegal.
On some level you recognize this, or else ‘regret for being misled’ wouldn’t be among your several suggested reasons for partial bans.
It's more to ensure proper consent. With MTX, for example, the buyer could be under the influence of some drug, and therefore not completely able to consent to that purchase. Or maybe a child got on the account and made the purchase. Or maybe the UX was so poorly designed (e.g. dark patterns) that they didn't realize they were making a purchase. There are so many ways for someone to have not completely consented to a transaction that there should be some way out of it.
However, if the individual fully consents and regrets it later, well, I guess that's a learning experience.
The role of government here is to:
- protect children
- ensure clarity in the purchase agreement
- provide a way out if the purchaser did not fully consent
It's not to prevent people from making stupid choices or to destroy business models "we" feel are bad for society. It should be focused on ensuring consent between two parties.
'I'm not condoning this... it should be my right!'
Why bother discussing anything if people don't listen to themselves?
but merely accept it as a part of a free market.
We invented "the free market." It's a system of protective restrictions - mostly, banning abusive bullshit, once it's proven to work. Some options are not allowed to exist because they make everything terrible for everybody.
You are actively defending that bullshit, tooth and nail. Splitting hairs about ethics versus law. Pretending money isn't a real material concern. Defending unsafe construction? Fuck off, guy. What's the point explaining systemic exploitation to someone who thinks fire codes are tyranny?
People are getting tricked and robbed for billions of dollars, just trying to play some games, and every single discussion veers into batshit crazy nonsense. I shouldn't have to defend law, as a concept, to condemn an industry-swallowing problem with no justification besides greed, when even the cranks getting on my case agree that it's fucking garbage.
You don't use this. You don't want this. You don't benefit from this.
When you care about people besides yourself, why is it the assholes with money, and not the millions of people they're subjecting to this manipulative crap?
We invented "the free market"
No, the free market is what naturally exists without any government whatsoever. We add restrictions on top to make sure everyone is playing fair.
We should only restrict options that are unfair, such as fraudulent transactions, anticompetitive behavior (e.g. monopolies), etc. Convincing someone to buy your thing isn't unfair or fraudulent, so it should be allowed to happen imo.
actively defending
There's a difference between defending something and refusing to attack it. I'm not saying these are good practices, just that they shouldn't be illegal.
fire codes are tyranny
When did I say that? I merely said I should be able to buy something that doesn't pass code, not that the code shouldn't exist.
The vast majority of people won't buy something that doesn't pass code, especially if it comes with a bunch of restrictions, like increased liability for any injuries due to not being at code. Building codes have a ton of value, but they don't need to be proscriptive.
I know I wouldn't buy a house that's not up to code (and I passed on one with foundation issues), but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. It should only be illegal to claim a house is up to code when it isn't.
When you care about people besides yourself
I care about all people, especially the poor. What I don't care for is restricting individual rights just because some people make stupid choices.
There are plenty of people who genuinely like the MTX model. I think their shallow and vain, but that doesn't mean I should take something they enjoy away because I don't it, or because some people can't handle it.
Should we make alcohol illegal because alcoholics exist? I don't like it, I've seen plenty lives ruined by it, and the US felt strongly enough about it to pass a constitutional amendment banning it (and later reversed it).
the free market is what naturally exists without any government whatsoever.
Hahaha, nooo. In the absence of restraint you get robbed and pound sand. The state-of-nature wild-west is never what y'all mean, when you fluff up "the free market." You mean a space where competition matters because people can trust they're making rational decisions on good information.
Charging real money inside a video game is inherently irrational because all the information is made-up. There's only one vendor and they control gravity. The environment is as arbitrary and fictional as any con-artist's story. More "tiger rock" than "deed to the Brooklyn Bridge," but still a complete fabrication that exists only to part you from your currency in exchange for approximately dick.
There’s a difference between defending something and refusing to attack it.
Declaring an absolute right to manipulate people is the first one.
"Manufacturing consent" is not some unfortunate side effect, for you. You defend it by name. You describe it the way more sensible people describe religious freedom. How much more throat do you have, if that's not a full-throated endorsement?
Here, I'll be more libertarian than you: why shouldn't we let people get scammed? Fuck 'em. They're adults, right? It's their money to lose. How can I be absolutely free to manufacture consent, if lying isn't an option? It's an abrogation of my right to free speech. Lying is legal. Scams should be legal as well, because ethics shouldn't dictate the law. They clicked Buy and it's my money now and tough shit. Caveat emptor, bitches!
Please tell me why you think that's wrong.
When did I say [fire codes are tyranny]? I merely said I should be able to buy something that doesn’t pass code
Do you read all this, or just type it?
There are plenty of people who genuinely like the MTX model.
And a bunch more who FUCKING HATE IT, but are subjected to it anyway, because hey guess what - other people's decisions also affect you. What everyone else wants and does will always limit your choices. We have to ensure assholes and morons don't ruin it for everyone else. Sometimes that means enforcing building safety, Jesus Hoobastank Christ, and sometimes that means recognizing a bullshit way to make money is illegitimate and unacceptable.
"Just sell video games" is not exactly an anticapitalist hellscape. We have to stop the abuse.
state-of-nature wild west
The "Wild West" was quite tame (pretty good read imo), and was a lot safer at least from a murder perspective than major cities at the time. Even today, rural areas have lower crime rates.
I think people are naturally moral toward one another, at least in smaller groups, and commit crimes when there's a level of abstraction (i.e. you're not hurting your neighbor, but someone you don't know). The reason we need strict rules and policing isn't because people are naturally bad, but because population density creates more opportunity for crime, as well as desperation (poverty rates are lower in rural areas).
My point with all this is that people are naturally good, it's the system we create that enables bad actors to get into positions of power.
Lying is legal
Your right to lie stops when you make a contract with someone, such as when you sell something. It's one of those necessities as the market pool gets bigger and you can't operate on trust anymore. I can say whatever I want to entice you to buy, but I cannot misrepresent what I'm selling.
There's no fraud with a typical MTX, you get exactly what's it says. Whether that has value is up to the buyer.
And libertarianism isn't "screw you, got mine," it's a set of principles that centers around non-aggression. I happen to be a somewhat left-leaning libertarian
Do you read all this, or just type it?
Both. There's a difference between something being certified and something being legal. I can buy something that's not certified, I just don't get the guarantees that come with certification.
subjected to it anyway
Nobody is forcing you to interact with a MTX model. I have never bought a MTX, and I actively avoid games that use it. There are a ton of great games out there, I don't need to play the ones with a predatory profit model.
Sometimes that means enforcing building safety
Sure, and that absolutely makes sense for something like a commercial building. It doesn't make sense for my personal residence. The first prevents injustices against the innocent, the latter just screws over the DIYer.
"Just sell video games" is not exactly an anticapitalist hellscape. We have to stop the abuse.
I would be a bit more sympathetic if there weren't other options to MTX, but the non-MTX model is extremely healthy, so I don't see a case for restricting it when the market is ensuring alternatives exist.
There are issues WRT kids and those with addiction problems, but we can ban the first and limit the second with less invasive policies.
My point with all this is that people are naturally good, it’s the system we create that enables bad actors to get into positions of power.
The anarcho-pastoralist argument for unrestrained capitalism. Eugh. That's worse than the joke about principles. Yeah keep going on about the evils of systems and power, as you argue these corporations have every right to manipulate money out of people.
I cannot misrepresent what I’m selling.
Says who?
"The free market is what naturally exists without any government whatsoever." It can't be a crime if there's no government. I didn't put a gun to anyone's head. The true free market says I can make up whatever I want, and it's on them to evaluate whether I'm full of shit.
You cannot argue otherwise without acknowledging systemic issues require limitations. That's exactly what you're doing, when you say that as a society "gets bigger," individuals need guarantees that they're not about to get fucked over.
I would be a bit more sympathetic if there weren’t other options to MTX
No you would not, if your principles existed. You'd just frown along with this shrug.
The existence of non-abusive options never excuses the abusive options. For exactly the same reason we don't say, well, truthful advertisements abound, so just pick those - we don't tell people to shop for houses that meet the fire code. They should all meet the goddamn fire code.
anarcho-pastoralist
When did I ever claim to be an anarchist? I explicitly explained how we need more rules the larger a society gets. I'm not making the argument that we need no government, but that we should have a restrained government.
Look at all the nonsense we're getting with opposition to police. Do you think that's a general opposition to rule of law, or perhaps it's just opposition to unjust laws? (i.e. laws w/o victims, like marijuana possession)
So I'm going to be very hesitant to create new laws where there is no clear victim. And I don't believe convincing someone to buy something make them a victim.
And no, individuals don't need guarantees that they're not going to get a bad deal, they need guarantees that they'll get what they expect to get in the transaction. Whether they can get a better deal somewhere else is completely irrelevant.
They should all
Should and must are very different things. Should is about morality, must is about law.
Games shouldn't use MTX because that's a manipulative way to run a business. But provided they're not misrepresenting the product, I don't see any reason to turn that into a legal ban. I'll never recommend a MTX-heavy game, and I'll avoid them at every turn, but I am unwilling to turn my preference into law because that's restricts others' rights. Many people like evergreen games, and MTX is the main way to fund that.
We can discuss requirements for games to make and advertise options to set purchase limits, but I will never support a bill to ban that type of game, unless there's some kind of monopolistic behavior that's preventing alternative monetization options in other games.
Of course you don't support meaningful consumer protection laws. You don't support fire codes. Stop typing another denial: you know goddamn well the point of them is that they must be followed, otherwise they're just fire suggestions. Fire... best practices. You can figure out which meaning of should I am using, as I tell you, there should be no fire-prone homes allowed!
People shouldn't have to choose between something tolerable and something that will fuck them over. Sorry, I'll retype that to appease your latest hair-splitting: people must not be forced to choose between acceptable options - and becoming a victim.
Anyone buying an unsafe house is a victim, no matter how ardently they insist it's fine. It's not. These laws are written in blood. Innocent strangers die when we let that shit happen. In large part because, hey guess what, markets only care about money. Optimize for money alone and you get places where no home is safe, but people still have to live, because it's where they are. Scolding those people for wanting a home that won't burn down, but buying one that might, is blaming those victims.
You know this. These are the laws we require, in large societies. You chafe at the comparison of your arguments to anarchist arguments, albeit possibly because you're unfamiliar with actual anarchist arguments.
And you'll glibly suggest "purchase limits."
Why?
What principled reason is there, if the right to manipulate people toward whatever you're selling is absolute? You insist this business model of selling soccer goals is in no way a scam, so who cares if someone blows every paycheck on it? If you want to say it's addiction, do we stop people from being alcoholics? Are you against substances that are almost unavoidably addictive, on a physiological level?
If this continues to spread, and becomes an effective monopoly - why do you suddenly care? Why is the point where it becomes a problem for you the point where it's too late?