Who is reponsible?

Can't business and pleasure co-exist?

Recently there have been a great deal of developments in the fields of microtransactions and Lootboxes. It seems like every other day we're hearing about some new game that pushes the boundaries once again or a retrospective from someone who has had their financial stability ruined from such mechanics. After a while, whenever I read these stories they would leave me with a thought running through my head; should companies be held responsible for situations like this. By that I mean, are game developers and publishers responsible for safe guarding their consumers against the possibility of losing everything. Just so we're clear, this blog will consist of less statements of fact and more my opinion on the topic at hand.

A while back I wrote a blog about a BBC story detailing a family who's savings had been eaten up after their four children were allowed to run wild with the microtransactions. The father had bought a couple of them for the children as a present, and the kids had observed how he had done it and repeated the process. (If I recall correctly, this is rather easy to do as neither PlayStation nor Xbox ask for you put in your credentials more than once.) The sub-10 year olds ended up spending £550 in search of their favourite player; Lionel Messi. (Whom they never received.) Once the parents discovered this, after receiving their bank statements, they went to both EA and Nintendo to solve this issue. This next part of the story is a bit sketchy and I'm not sure how much I believe it, but apparently, EA sent them back a link to their 'Controlling in-game purchases' site page, whilst Nintendo actually refunded the money. (I'm not sure if that's real, it just fits EA's MO a little too well.)

The wasn't the end of that story however, there were more instances of situations like this. In the article they mentioned one player who submitted for an information's request and discovered that he had spent around $10,000 in two years towards the game. When talking about it in a Eurogamer interview, he uttered that infamous quote "It's just not worth it." I actually do remember this story at the time too. When this data law was implemented there was so much grumbling from the likes of EA and Activision that they decided to make it a huge hassle for customers to receive their data. They're were even some gaffe's outside the gaming sphere, such as when one Alexa customers was accidentally sent copies of the recorded audio from another users device. (But that's a whole other kettle of fish.)

There was actually a follow-up article from the BBC where they collated different stories from consumers into a list of accidental infractions. One woman told of her 22 year old Autistic son and he ended up spending his life savings of £3,160 on a mobile game called 'Hidden Artefacts'. (Wait, he's 22 and he had 3 grands worth of savings? Well, I feel like a failure.) The woman worked tirelessly to get the money back but, as one would expect from the mobile market, everyone was extremely unhelpful and she ended up hitting a road block. There was another story about a 16 year old who spent nearly £2000 on NBA, which had to be paid out of his sister's college funds. A 12 year who dropped £700 on Clash of Clans and a 5 year old who put £500 into a golfing game.

Now, initially you may be thinking something along the lines of "So what, should these companies really be held accountable for buyer's remorse?" But I'd urge you to take a look at the ages of those people I mentioned again. You may note how everyone there is either underage or somewhat vulnerable. Now, this may be because high functioning adults who fall for these schemes are too embarrassed, or pig headed, to admit it, granted, but I feel there is a more insidious angle to all this. You see, a lot of mobile games or video games that allow for this kind of overspending are aimed towards appealing to kids. That 'Hidden artefacts' game featured a young girl in it's art, the golfing game looked bright and appealing, Sports games are always a safe bet for kids, and 'Clash of Clans' has always had a low effort cartoony look to it. (Although that may be more a comment to Supercell's lazy art direction.)

With the plethora of advertising laws that exist to limit the amount and type of content that be advertised to children, given their inherent weakness to suggestion, wouldn't one assume that similar laws exist towards targeting money-grubbing games towards them? Well, no actually. Advertising law is hyper focused on the advertising area of marketing (go figure) with the actual presentation of the game, and more importantly it's contents, falling under the supervision of the Entertainment Software Association. And we all know their stance towards featuring gambling in games .("What gambling? I don't see no gambling.") The point is moot anyway.  Children are merely collateral damage in this conflict anyway, the real target for these companies are the adults.

Fifa don't make their tens of millions a year through miss-purchases, oh no. EA, 2K and just about every AAA gaming company nowadays, gear their games towards getting players hooked on the Lootbox cycle. I'll use Fifa as an example. Fifa totes their popular Ultimate Team mode every year as a 'fanatasy football online', experience. It is the key mode and the star attraction for fans, and the main source of revenue for the people running the show. Once players access this mode, they are encouraged to build their team and play them against other players online, but there is a problem. You'll go online, get your butt kicked and come away realizing that you need better players. (And if you think that the chances of coming across a better equipped opponent is random, I suggest you take a look at some of the matchmaking patents that game's companies were filing for towards the end of 2017.) The consumer then realizes that their only way to get better players is to fork out on Lootboxes. They get crap so they keep going until someone useful arrives. They go online, maybe win a few matches, and then get hit up against a roadblock again and return to the Lootboxes.

That is the cycle that rules Fifa and it is what makes them their bread and butter. It is coupled with the fact that every year your Ultimate Team is reset, requiring you to go through your grind all over again from scratch. When you purpose build your system for this, then it is an entirely consensual relationship in the eyes of the law. Moral obligation might have people point their fingers at the predatory game play loop that keeps people spending, the gambling-esque psychological cues to get people hooked, and the obfuscating 'FUT' Coins to devalue the money that is being spent. But none of that is the concern of EA, because everyone partaking is doing so willingly.

So if that's the case, why are there people who still walk away from it feeling like they've been taken advantage of? Remember that guy who spent $10 000 on FUT, he certainly feels upset with himself for going that far. Go onto Fifa's own Reddit and you can come across people who bemoan the money they've spent on Microtransactions. Just now I managed to bring up a thread from 9 months back that has people saying that they actually hate playing the game, due to it's pay-to-win tendencies, and find opening packs to be the most fun part. Take a look Here, this stuff is real!

The question that I want to purpose at the end of the day is (once again); are these companies responsible for the systems they implement? Should they be held responsible for the way they twist and torment people into spending more then they should in things that they regret? One could almost compare a situation like this as similar to living in an abusive relationship, with one party always pushing the other into situations they feel uncomfortable with. (Although, perhaps that is a tad too flippant.) Ultimately, there is no legal answer to this question as of yet. As much as these companies like to boast about how the law permits them to make their games like this, the truth is that the law is silent on the issue, we'll see which way the pendulum swings when the matter makes it to court. (Perhaps soon if Parliament has any bite to it's bark.) Until then it is an issue of ethics, and that I cannot answer definitively. I leave the matter open to you to decide. Take a measured look, remember to be empathetic, and see if you know were the blame should lay.