[HN Gopher] Italy investigates Activision Blizzard for pushing i...
___________________________________________________________________
Italy investigates Activision Blizzard for pushing in-game
purchases
Author : 7777777phil
Score : 98 points
Date : 2026-01-17 13:44 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (techcrunch.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (techcrunch.com)
| Hamuko wrote:
| I hope if they decide on fines that they weigh it against the
| finances of the entire Microsoft Corporation. Really let
| Microsoft enjoy the synergy that these large-scale acquisitions
| bring.
|
| Has anyone other than Bobby Kotick and the other previous ABK
| shareholders benefitted from the acquisition? Xbox hasn't gotten
| any more successful as a brand, the consoles aren't selling, Game
| Pass subscriptions only keep getting more expensive (which I'd
| imagine leading to retention issues), they need to put more and
| more games on rivaling platforms, they've shuttered studios
| they've previously purchased, and these days I imagine they'd
| rather use that cash on AI instead.
| add-sub-mul-div wrote:
| > I hope if they decide on fines that they weigh it against the
| finances of the entire Microsoft Corporation.
|
| For more serious offenses I agree that should be the norm, but
| we're talking about mobile games being annoying. Even with the
| "won't someone think of the children" angle it sounds
| excessive. What have we really lost from mobile Call of Duty
| not being better?
|
| > Has anyone other than Bobby Kotick and the other previous ABK
| shareholders benefitted from the acquisition?
|
| Me, as a consumer. I haven't purchased a game in over five
| years and I've played a ton on Game Pass. And the diversity of
| games I've played is greater than before, there's many indie
| games I wouldn't otherwise have tried. The catalog is high
| quality and hasn't descended into garbage like Netflix over the
| years. It's been too good a value to feel possible and however
| long they want to keep it up, that's great.
| techpression wrote:
| I expect Xbox is nothing but a subscription service in five
| years, no studios and no consoles. The acquisition feels like
| someone was bored and wanted to spend some money, once they had
| it they immediately lost interest and now it's all just fading
| into obscurity.
| b65e8bee43c2ed0 wrote:
| >The authority is also looking into the games' parental control
| features, as the default settings lets minors make in-game
| purchases, play for long periods without restraints, and allow
| them to chat with others in-game.
|
| is this satire?
| mslate wrote:
| Not sure if you have children, but this is exactly what a
| healthy government regulatory framework looks like.
| JasonADrury wrote:
| What does healthy parenting look like then?
| mslate wrote:
| When did "healthy parenting" become a full-time
| cybersecurity job with no training, adversaries backed by
| infinite capital, teams of PhDs optimizing for addiction,
| and sexual predators from around the globe dialoguing with
| your child through any glass surface your child can get
| their hands on?
| jimbob45 wrote:
| Cherry picking the foreign company with the deepest pockets
| for "crimes" every game developer commits these days?
|
| Surely, HN of all places recognizes that the EU fines Meta/MS
| any time they have a shortfall in their budget.
| mslate wrote:
| Should Apple/Google be liable as platform?
|
| I'm trying to imagine how you envision regulation without
| going after the biggest individual apps that enable child
| financial fraud & sexual grooming.
| amlib wrote:
| Considering how much big tech gets for defrauding their
| customers, even if the EU is only applying fines in bad
| faith (which they aren't) it is only a drop in the bucket
| in comparison...
| BigTTYGothGF wrote:
| > Surely, HN of all places recognizes that the EU fines
| Meta/MS any time they have a shortfall in their budget
|
| Am I supposed to be upset at this?
| Hamuko wrote:
| Can you show me the graph that shows the relationship
| between "EU budget shortfalls" and "Meta/MS fines".
| throw20251220 wrote:
| Hey, Donald! Just don't send tanks. It's okay with tariffs
| but tanks are a no no.
| jajuuka wrote:
| This is a toxic government regulatory framework. Treating all
| consumers as suspect children first and foremost not only
| makes the experience worse but it defeats the purpose it was
| created for. I shouldn't need to submit my ID every time I
| want to watch a rated R movie on Netflix or cable. I
| shouldn't need to scan and submit my face to view a wikipedia
| article about anatomy. This is the end goal of such
| suspicious treatment.
|
| The tools currently exist to "protect" children in game.
| Abdicating your responsibility as a parent is not a problem
| for the state to solve.
| xgbi wrote:
| What are you talking about ?
|
| It says that the parental settings (when enabled!) are just
| letting children do whatever they want by default:
|
| - buying overpriced objects - chat without any restriction
| online - play without interruption for long time
|
| I think the first one is probably the most poignant: piping
| children into disguised gambling addiction by default seems
| like a major fault. Borderline illegal, if you ask me.
|
| It looks a lot like a phony feature "let's add a parental
| control, it will make people feel like we're trustworthy
| and bring back more revenue. And please don't disable
| ingame purchases by default, this is our cash cow".
| ddtaylor wrote:
| No, those are regulations that exist in other countries to keep
| kids from being gambling zombies. Many countries are adopting
| limits and controls for minors. South Korea was one of the
| first as professional gaming requires a license.
| ungreased0675 wrote:
| I wish the Italian regulators wild success beyond their
| imagination.
| mattmaroon wrote:
| Now they just need a cartoon camel.
| NorwegianDude wrote:
| As a game developer myself, I think young kids should not be able
| to make purchases on their own.
|
| But some of the ideas on what needs to be done is just silly.
|
| Here is some of the ideas the Norwegian Consumer Council
| suggested: - All things in games should be shown in real money
| value, not in game currency that you have to but for real money,
| and the price should reflect the most expensive way to get the
| currency. - All transactions in games should have the same rights
| as in real life(if you buy an item in game, you could use your
| right of withdrawal). - Users should be able to choose how much
| the want to buy of premium currency/spend.
|
| While it might have good intentions, they have serious issues. I
| sell bundles of in game currency. I don't allow users to select
| just how much they want to buy. I don't do this as part of an
| evil plan, but because it makes sense. Bigger purchases give
| more, because the percentage lost to fees are lower. Tiny amount
| can not be bought, as it would not make sense considering the per
| transaction cost.
|
| I don't price things in real currencies, cause after the purchase
| is made, it's not real money, and if it were, I'd be a financial
| institution and break the rules of all major card networks. It
| also would cause issues when it comes to inflation adjustment. If
| an user buys 100 "coins", they can buy something for 100 coins.
| If I adjust for inflation then I adjust the price of coins, not
| how many coins are needed to buy something in game. That would
| not work with real money.
|
| Regulation is welcome, but don't do something dumb. Let most
| thing be as they are, but put strict rules in place on kids
| making purchases, that way a grown up who hopefully understands
| money can approve or deny the purchase.
| tokai wrote:
| I don't know from your gripes it sounds like it is the right
| approach to rein in the lawless world of in-game purchases.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| > Bigger purchases give more, because the percentage lost to
| fees are lower.
|
| So you sell $100 of in game currency for $85. It's all the same
| except 1 coin equals one cent when you buy it in the smallest
| bundle.
|
| > I'd be a financial institution and break the rules of all
| major card networks.
|
| It's measured in dollars but it is a gift card. It's not that
| serious.
| swiftcoder wrote:
| > I sell bundles of in game currency. I don't allow users to
| select just how much they want to buy. I don't do this as part
| of an evil plan
|
| So if I look at your in-game purchases, I'm going to find that
| they aren't all priced to make the user buy the next-larger
| increment of currency... right?
| autoexec wrote:
| > As a game developer myself, I think young kids should not be
| able to make purchases on their own.
|
| As a gamer, I don't think they should ever feel the need to
| purchase anything with real world money in a video game, even
| with a parent. Purchasing the game should be the last time a
| parent ever has to worry about spending actual money on it.
| fainpul wrote:
| In game purchases are a dumb thing in itself and need to go
| away. You can sell add-ons for your game as additional
| packages, like DLC. Users go to the store (e.g. Steam) and buy
| an add-on to the game. It's priced like a normal article and
| you can offer discounts if you want.
|
| If you offer something that cannot be handled like that and
| absolutely has to be "in game", it's probably because you're
| trying to extort the players by frustrating them or try to
| exploit psychological weaknesses to make users pay more than
| they want to and you should stop that.
| viraptor wrote:
| > Bigger purchases give more, because the percentage lost to
| fees are lower. Tiny amount can not be bought, as it would not
| make sense considering the per transaction cost.
|
| This is a solved issue in basically any real life commerce.
| (Depends on the country if it's enforced) You say what your
| transaction fee is and add it on top. Then people can decide
| for themselves.
| constantcrying wrote:
| I personally _hate_ micro transactions and avoid games like
| these, especially mobile games, like the plague.
|
| But we have to be honest here, these micro transactions are what
| consumers _want_. There is a reason that gatcha games (and paid
| mechanics of those games are implemented in the games mentioned
| in the article) are so successful and so popular. Consumers of
| mobile games, unlike consumers of PC games, enjoy these
| mechanics, gatcha games are going so far, that the core system of
| the game is not the gameplay (which is often disregarded as an
| automated activity), but rather the gatch mechanics.
|
| Yes, these systems are stupid and insane. But they are giving
| consumers exactly what they want.
| tokai wrote:
| Consumers also want opioids and toxic childrens toys, among
| other harmful things.
| constantcrying wrote:
| An opioid addiction is no where close to dropping a hundred
| Euros a month on video games. I doubt that many people on
| here actually would want to ban adults from spending "too
| much" money on video games. And my comment is in response to
| the general sentiment that this represents some kind of
| "anti-consumer" behavior, when there is a large organic
| market for this and consumer actively want these features.
|
| Personally I am very paternalistic and would support a total
| ban on these mechanics, together with legal limits of how
| much money people are allowed to spend on activities like
| these. Of course making any of these activities available to
| kids, should be banned as well. This is obviously an
| extremely unpopular position, since, as I said, consumers
| really enjoy these mechanics.
| swiftcoder wrote:
| > I doubt that many people on here actually would want to
| ban adults from spending "too much" money on video games
|
| The problem is not "spending too much" on videos games.
| It's the reward structure designed to incentivise one to
| spend unbounded amounts - just like a casino.
|
| And just like a casino, I don't know that making them fully
| illegal is the correct way to go. But we surely shouldn't
| let kids in the casino, or let casinos advertise to kids,
| etc.
| constantcrying wrote:
| >The problem is not "spending too much" on videos games.
| It's the reward structure designed to incentivise one to
| spend unbounded amounts - just like a casino.
|
| I do not think you understand how these games work or how
| they incentivize spending. Lootboxes and gachas work very
| different to a Casino and equating their reward structure
| just makes no sense at all. Psychologically they work in
| very different ways.
|
| I hate to be defending lootboxes and gachas, but the
| psychology behind those is very different to how a Casino
| works. Gambling addicts are at an especially high risk of
| suicide, because they expect some amount of returns on
| their gambling activity, if those returns fail to
| materialize the player can be in immense debt. This just
| can not happen with a gacha, where you know upfront that
| every euro you spend is a 100% loss. Again, this should
| not be a defense of lootboxes, but we have to be honest
| about these mechanics.
|
| And the psychological mechanisms are also different,
| gachas and lootboxes appeal very much to a collector
| mindset, where people play _until_ they get a certain
| rare digital good, but playing after that would be
| pointless. This is a different mechanism to gambling in a
| casino.
|
| >And just like a casino, I don't know that making them
| fully illegal is the correct way to go.
|
| I see no reason why either should be legal, to be honest.
| We exclude kids from casinos, because their ability to
| make informed decisions is limited, but the same is true
| for a gambling addict. Letting people just ruin their
| lives for whatever reason seems a pretty insane policy.
| swiftcoder wrote:
| > Letting people just ruin their lives for whatever
| reason seems a pretty insane policy
|
| We also have state-run lotteries, which are effectively a
| form of regressive taxation. Aligning regulations with
| well-being is an ongoing project
| constantcrying wrote:
| To be honst I think state run lotteries are a pretty good
| idea, if they would replace other forms of gambling,
| which apparently is becoming less and less true,
| especially with the rise of the completely under
| regulated prediction markets.
|
| Regarding the subject at hand, I think a very obvious and
| necessary first step is banning children from
| participation. Obviously this is easily circumventable,
| but at will at least be some form of harm reduction.
|
| I think another possibility as a first step is a forced
| limit on how much an account is allowed to spend in a
| given time, e.g. the company is only allowed to add
| digital goods not exceeding X euros to the owners
| account, together with restrictions on how these items
| are traded, this will make whaling impossible, which is
| apparently the most important demographic for developers.
| [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNjI03CGkb4 ]
| behringer wrote:
| Yes it is, and we're not talking about a hundred euros.
| Some people waste their entire paychecks.
| Loughla wrote:
| Can we agree to stop calling it anything but gambling? Because
| it's just gambling.
|
| Also, the fact that it's called gotcha (got ya) has always had
| the hair up on the back of my neck.
| Hamuko wrote:
| It's not named "gatcha" or "gotcha". It's "gacha", derived
| from gachiyapon.
| tokai wrote:
| Like having your bookie in your contacts as 'the scammer'.
| constantcrying wrote:
| >Can we agree to stop calling it anything but gambling?
| Because it's just gambling.
|
| No. It is not just "gambling" it is a very specific form of
| gambling, which is unlike most other forms of gambling. E.g.
| for most other gambling activities, the expectation is that
| the reward is monetary (see e.g. sports betting, roulette).
|
| This should be clearly demarcated from micro transactions,
| where a predetermined reward is offered for a fixed amount of
| money. Lootboxes, where a digital reward (which may or may
| not be resellable) is given and gatcha mechanics, which are a
| very specific genre of gambling for digital rewards.
|
| I see no reason why all of these should be treated the same.
|
| >Also, the fact that it's called gotcha (got ya) has always
| had the hair up on the back of my neck.
|
| Pure coincidence. The name comes from:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gashapon
| wang_li wrote:
| Europe seems to have adopted the practice of looting American
| companies.
| PlanksVariable wrote:
| Italian regulators have quite a racket going. Who do they think
| they are, the Mafia?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-01-17 23:01 UTC)