>> I just don't understand why you want to post it in a msg board where you know that 1/2 of the people won't agree with you.<<
His opinion is welcome whether anyone else disagrees with him or not, as is yours. If we all agreed about everything, we'd have nothing to talk about but Stock Puppy's pictures.
I think if you took a poll, most people here would agree with him, but that's incidental. While I understand your point about people taking responsibility for their own purchases, and those of their children, I don't see why any game manufacturer who sells a game that is played by children has to include such high priced optional purchases. A hundred bucks for digital play money, a new weapon, or whatever? That's just nonsense.
There is a legal concept that applies here. It's called "attractive nuisance." Kind of like a mouse trap for humans. These game developers have created an attractive nuisance, and I think they bear a lot of the responsibility here. Apple bears some of it, too, since they provide the environment that makes this all possible. And parents, obviously, have to do their part.
I can't see how the blame in a case like this rests solely on the parents. Nor can I accept your argument that the game developers would have to charge a whole lot more for the games if they couldn't get some players to cough up a couple of hundred dollars for extra digital doodads. Many developers manage to make a lot of money in the App Store without resorting to that tactic. |
