49
Walmart and Unity To Bring Immersive Commerce to Games, Virtual Worlds and Apps
(corporate.walmart.com)
this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2024
49 points (83.6% liked)
Games
16746 readers
139 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That may be true, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal.
Laws shouldn't be crafted to eliminate stupid decisions, laws should penalize and discourage fraud and other direct forms of harm. Saying "you should buy this" isn't fraud in any way, provided the customer gets what they paid for, even if that thing is worthless (provided they were fully aware that it's worthless). People put a lot of value in vanity, and they're usually using money to stroke their own ego.
And that's totally fine, provided the transaction was consensual and the product wasn't misrepresented. It's disgusting and I will never work for or purchase from a company that does that, but I don't think it should be outlawed. We should absolutely make information public about how these things work so people can be informed and choose to make different choices.
Like charging real money to flip a bit inside a video game. So you can say you have something that's already in the game, because it's already onscreen, in the game, on your machine. When the whole game exists to make you want that bullshit.
Which is now a multi-billion-dollar industry unto itself. That is the only way they make money.
They take money for things they will just give you, if you play long enough. As if playing is labor. As if another dozen hours of grinding would mean they owe you a hundred bucks. Nah: they just take that much, so you'll avoid that frustration. You are paying money to play the game less.
That's a scam.
That's a big fuckin' hint that rational purchases leading to optimal consumer value are not what's happening.
That's an environment where all apparent positives are made-up by the people taking your actual money.
Misrepresentation is what manipulation is. There is no form of it that's not exploitative, and when that's just for yuks in a game you already bought - great! That is how games do. That is central to the concept. But when it's exploitation for money, we have words for that, and none of them are pleasant.
Information will never stop human beings from being predictably irrational. That's... what those words mean. More data won't help. That's why this shit works, at all, despite widespread vitriolic hatred toward the entire business model. It works no matter how anyone feels about it.
This business model is the entire problem. Wagging a finger at individuals only makes it worse.
Legislation is the only thing that could possibly help.
If the customer knows that's what they're paying for, there's no fraud.
No it's not. The player gets exactly what was advertised, so it's not a scam. There's no fraud there.
That may be true, but I firmly believe it's immoral to restrict a consenting adult's choices just because you don't agree with them and think you know better (you probably do, but that's beside the point).
Not all problems need solutions. If an alcoholic wants to destroy their life with alcohol, that should be their right. However, I think society should provide tools to help that alcoholic recover once they decide to fix their life (free rehab funded with taxes on alcohol, for example). That obviously won't help all alcoholics, but it provides options to help people fix their lives.
The same should apply here. Tax MTX and use it to fund game addiction rehab. But don't ban the MTX.
In other words, the ends do not justify the means. An immoral law is immoral even if it was created to help people, and restricting choice and limiting self-determination are immoral.
jUsT bEcAuSe YoU diSaGrEe yeah fuck all the other words I keep saying. And some of the words you keep saying.
You know this is rife with exploitation. You refuse to acknowledge the exploitation is all there is.
Charging money per-goal in soccer is fraud, even if you "get" the goal, for the money. The game, the stadium, the sport, exist solely as a dark vortex toward that decision. Your consent was manufactured because the entire thing is manufactured.
This business model is intolerable. There is no ethical form.
Taking back part of the money they ripped off will solve nothing.
Exploitation in general isn't illegal, only certain forms are.
A casino that offers free alcohol and has enticing games isn't illegally exploiting its customers, even if those customers get addicted to the games and their inhibitions are reduced due to the effects of alcohol. However, there are limitations, such as not allowing obviously drunk people to gamble since they're sufficiently impaired so as to not be able to legally consent.
I don't think MTX rise to that standard.
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Are you saying viewers are charged per goal scored while they're watching? Is that actually a thing that happens, or even remotely similar? And how is that fraud? Fraud is when you misrepresent something:
Maybe if the ticket to the game said $50, but in the fine print you need to pay $100/goal and that's not disclosed anywhere prior to purchase.
Or are you saying that P2W is fraud generally? That really depends on how the free or lower cost tier is advertised.
I agree, which is why I don't engage with it. But something being intolerant or untasteful doesn't mean it should be illegal.
I find gambling to also be intolerable, so I don't gamble. However, I'll be first in line to support making it legal because it's tyrannical to prevent people from consensual gambling.
Yes.
Jesus, why do I bother typing words?
That's not what intolerable means! You're fucking tolerating it! You're fucking DEFENDING it!