And we're finally there... www.kwedit.com

[KallDrexx]

I thought it was illegal to enter into a contract with a minor.  Am I wrong?

It's not a contract though.  It's a "promise" 

[Musashi]

Right.  No contract.  If you don't pay, you can't use it any more.  If I'm missing something, please explain to me why this is outrageous.  Is it immoral for children to be asked to pay?  Are we luring children into entrapment?  I think you (plural) may be taking this a bit too far.  I get that it's a silly name, and that it's obviously aimed at kids.  But you know.  What's new?

[LK]

They either lose a little bit of virtual goods (inherently worseless except for the value we place on it) or they've created a new avenue to get real money from children.

Win / Win, and an erosion of society, I think.

[Murgos]

Is it immoral for children to be asked to pay?  Are we luring children into entrapment?  I think you (plural) may be taking this a bit too far.

D:  Hi Suzie, how old are you?

S:  I'M SIX!

D:  Well Suzie, do you want this lollipop?

S:  Oh, YES! YES!

D:  Please sign your soul to me.

S:  Okay!.

The whole concept is based on abusing a child's ability to judge cause and effect and to place an appropriate value on goods and services.  How can this not be a bad idea?

[Musashi]

Yea.  That's too far a judgement for me.  I think at worst it's slightly disingenuous.  I'm not sure I'd even go that far.  I'm pretty sure there are far worse things aimed at children to be outraged about.

Also, I'm pretty sure six is a bit young for the example.  The age requirement is thirteen for this service.  I'm not so naive to think younger people won't use it.  But, still worth pointing out.  Also, no contract, so no soul signing over.  Like I said, going too far.

I think if we want to be angry at exploiting children, we should look no further than the shoes on our feet.  But I guess these are our kids getting scammed for Penguin Points, so holy shit, right?

[Murgos]

Also, I'm pretty sure six is a bit young for the example.  The age requirement is thirteen for this service.  I'm not so naive to think younger people won't use it.  But, still worth pointing out.  Also, no contract, so no soul signing over.  Like I said, going too far.

You really think that if some 13 year old charges up a couple of hundred dollars in 'loans' that the service isn't going to be hounding their parents for payment?

Really?

e:  The last thing I will say on this is that if it were a legit attempt to provide value to an undeserved market segment it would be targeted to the parents, you know, the ones legally able to enter into a contract, not attempting to avoid them.

[Musashi]

Also, I'm pretty sure six is a bit young for the example.  The age requirement is thirteen for this service.  I'm not so naive to think younger people won't use it.  But, still worth pointing out.  Also, no contract, so no soul signing over.  Like I said, going too far.

You really think that if some 13 year old charges up a couple of hundred dollars in 'loans' that the service isn't going to be hounding their parents for payment?

Really?

Yes.  I think that there are laws against them doing that.  I guess it depends on your definition of hounding.  If by hounding you mean informing, yea they'll probably attempt to collect.  If by hounding you mean sending it to collections, I don't think so.

Worth noting also, it's a couple hundred dollars worth of funny money.  Like Lorekeep says.  Nobody loses here.  Not something worth sending Joey 'Three Fingers' over.  Whether it's worth bemoaning the erosion of society is up to you.  I'm gonna go with nah, man.

[LK]

You really think they'd give them enough "kwedit" to start out with a couple hundred dollars in loans? Again, we're talking about virtual items being purchased. If there's a deadbeat, they haven't lost a thing. But to get to the status you're talking about means they've already collected hundreds of dollars or more to achieve that type of status.

They're losing *nothing* in the deal.

Moreover if fraud and misuse of the service becomes that rampant or impactful, then companies like Three Rings would be well within their right to terminate service.

[Yegolev]

Accordion.

[Aez]

Colbert covered it:

USA:

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/265469/march-02-2010/the-word---kid-owe


CAN (start around 5 min):

http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-colbert-report/full-episodes/#clip270916

[Venkman]

http://www.kwedit.com/products/promise

Puzzle Pirates is shown there. Daniel James must be off his fucking rocker.

including:
    * Greenpatch
    * Champions Online
    * Tetris Friends
    * Barn Buddy
    * Island Paradise

...

*Champions Online

I heck of a lot more people are playing Barn Buddy (FB game) than are playing CO. I realize the latter is a more "legit" game by the standards set here, but it's also the least played in that list. Except maybe (Lil) Green Patch. Depends how you compare the metrics.

[CharlieMopps]

I am sort of confused by the outrage.  What with all the 'web games are the way of the future' bullshit floating around here.  This is a way for tweens to stop by 7-11 and pay in between vampire movies.  There's no Kwedit enforcers knocking on your door.  There's no effect on your real credit.  You have to be over 13.  It's sort of like, here try this.  If you actually pay, you can keep using it.  If you don't, well okay, never-mind.  I'm pretty sure, if your kid decided to abuse it, that he'd get away with it once, and then he'd get his account closed.  I don't think you're on the hook.

Article.  Article.

The sole purpose of this service is to allow children to circumvent using their parents credit card and thereby hide from them how much they are spending or even that the game costs money at all. As an added bonus they will loan money and then, if not paid, prevent the child from continuing to play. At that point they extort personal information from the child to unlock their account. Tell me what about that you find ok.

At some point the public is going to have to realize that if you monetize games like this, the stuff in the games has real value. The game literally becomes an online casino that never pays out. It's inevitable that this is going to end up blowing up one day and end up in front of congress or in some crazy lawsuit. That day will not be good for the gaming industry. There will be new laws, laws that will probably go way to far. This service is a very good example of something that could easily get a lot of press as representing what todays online gaming is all about, even if it isn't.

[schild]

http://www.kwedit.com/products/promise

Puzzle Pirates is shown there. Daniel James must be off his fucking rocker.

including:
    * Greenpatch
    * Champions Online
    * Tetris Friends
    * Barn Buddy
    * Island Paradise

...

*Champions Online

I heck of a lot more people are playing Barn Buddy (FB game) than are playing CO. I realize the latter is a more "legit" game by the standards set here, but it's also the least played in that list. Except maybe (Lil) Green Patch. Depends how you compare the metrics.

I wasn't arguing otherwise?

[Murgos]

Again, we're talking about virtual items being purchased. If there's a deadbeat, they haven't lost a thing.

They're losing *nothing* in the deal.

Why do you think that Kwedit and the companies they are negotiating with think that their goods are valueless?  Do you think that when Cryptic/Atari and Kwedit signed the deal that would allow Kwedit dollars to be used in Cryptics/Atari's services that they put a clause in there that allowed Kwedit not to pay for the goods purchased?

Sight unseen I can guarantee you that the contract between Kwedit and Atari/Cryptic is as legally binding as anything their lawyers can make and that it is very, very specific about renumeration and that Kwedit fully expects to make a profit by collecting on debts owed.

Again, if it was a legit service it would be conducted through legit means.

[01101010]

So basically a company is creating a way to take kids' allowances right out of the parent's pocket. Nifty scheme.

Though I do see a Chris Hansen show in the near future along with a rise in windowless van populations outside of most 7-Elevens.

[LK]

Again, we're talking about virtual items being purchased. If there's a deadbeat, they haven't lost a thing.

They're losing *nothing* in the deal.

Why do you think that Kwedit and the companies they are negotiating with think that their goods are valueless?

I don't think that they think their goods are valueless. I'm saying that if someone purchases a small amount of RMT bucks or whatever the service is charging to buy fictional items, and the player doesn't pay because they abused Kwedit, the developer isn't impacted in the same way a company who uses physical materials and compensated labor to create a product that is then stolen and has real world value that can be counted as a loss of assets and cannot be easily duplicated.

If RMT bucks are stolen and used to buy virtual goods, I don't see how that's a loss of assets since RMT bucks / digital goods are an infinitely spawning asset controlled by the developer. Regardless, such behavior would result in a swift ban to the offending account, from what I can tell. Reading about Kwedit though, any issues would be on Kwedit's side; which is where I can see Kwedit being the harassing agent coming into play.

It'd be trickier to argue RMT bucks being stolen and then resold for real world currency, but I have faith they have systems in place to negate or combat that. Still, the developer isn't really that impacted.

Bottom line: Kwedit either get paid (and pays the developer) or they lost some digital asset that has no value once its in a player's hand and cost nothing to give to them, and they've identified an untrustworthy customer. They can't take a loss. They can only profit.

Now, don't take my comments to mean that it didn't cost the developer money to setup the RMT system. My perspective is limited to how this is simultaneously a clever and tragic ADD-ON to existing RMT systems created by developers, separate from my belief about RMT systems in games.

[taolurker]

I see a whole new Chinese farming industry forming around Kwedit.

[CmdrSlack]

If my daughter was older, I'd let her try this out, simply because any agreement entered into by a 13-year-old is going to be unenforceable and void. Infants (not the same as babies in law) cannot enter into contracts. Yes, there are exceptions to the rule (if your kid agrees to pay for a hotel room while stranded somewhere, you'll be on the hook for that necessity), but I highly doubt virtual goods can be colored as a necessity.

Suffice it to say, if a parent or other relative absolutely refuses to accept the "Pass the Duck" mechanism, there's no way Kwedit can hold the kid responsible. Sure, they can cut off your kwedit, and lower your kwedit score, but the real recourse that service providers have in this scheme is to refuse to extend further kwedit to the kid. If the amounts of available kwedit start out low, the overall loss to service providers is theoretically low. My sense is that this business model relies on the idea that kids will WANT to pay back their loans so that they can keep getting more loans. Perhaps it also relies on parental pressure as well.

It'd be an interesting test case to see hit the courts though. If a kid was to get a kwedit score that entitled that kid to borrow $400 in kwedit, then defaulted on that promise to pay, what would they do to recover the lost funds?

[LK]

If a kid was to get a kwedit score that entitled that kid to borrow $400 in kwedit, then defaulted on that promise to pay, what would they do to recover the lost funds?

From a developer's perspective, I'd probably ban their account or revoke their assets, if my EULA supported it and after Kwedit was nice enough to report the issue.

[Mrbloodworth]

Why does this sound familiar with the whole "Giving gifts to minors that take requests on web cams" thing? If i recall, "payment" was granted buy paying for things on someones wish list at amazon or the like.

[kildorn]

The reason this bothers me is that it seems geared on the long con. Less about "how do we milk this kid now" and more "how can we get this kid used to using credit cards to buy shit they want, and thinking the enforcement system is pretty lax on payments?"

I'd be shocked if this site wasn't at least partially funded by a credit card company looking at it as a long term marketing option.

[Musashi]

The sole purpose of this service is to allow children to circumvent using their parents credit card and thereby hide from them how much they are spending or even that the game costs money at all. As an added bonus they will loan money and then, if not paid, prevent the child from continuing to play. At that point they extort personal information from the child to unlock their account. Tell me what about that you find ok.

At some point the public is going to have to realize that if you monetize games like this, the stuff in the games has real value. The game literally becomes an online casino that never pays out. It's inevitable that this is going to end up blowing up one day and end up in front of congress or in some crazy lawsuit. That day will not be good for the gaming industry. There will be new laws, laws that will probably go way to far. This service is a very good example of something that could easily get a lot of press as representing what todays online gaming is all about, even if it isn't.

No.  I'm not saying this isn't a way to get kid's money.  I'm saying who cares.  It's a fucking jungle out there, etc.  There are marketing practices that are way more underhanded and devious than this.  Joe Camel comes to mind.  In fact, this seems like a good opportunity to teach your kid about credit where he can't really get hurt.  Yea he could lose his Penguin account or whatever, but he'll outgrow that bullshit anyway.  And is his 'personal information' so important to you?  What kind of personal information does your kid have.  He's a kid ffs.  Does he like toys?  Does he like games?  Does he have e-mail?  So we're talking about spam here?  OH SHIT NOT SPAM FUUUUUUUUUUUU.

Also, your conspiracy theory is probably going to come to fruition any second.  If you want to shut your kids off from the world, be prepared for the consequences when they break out anyway and then don't know what the fuck to do.

[Furiously]

Someone needs to sign their kid up to how much annoying mail there is.  When they don't pay.

[tmp]

No.  I'm not saying this isn't a way to get kid's money.  I'm saying who cares.

I'd guess the parents of kids in question, logically enough. Given the "kid's money" is in fact their money.

And is his 'personal information' so important to you?  What kind of personal information does your kid have.  He's a kid ffs.

You seem to be under impression kids live in perfect void with no access to adults and other kids. It's not just what kind of personal information they personally own, but just as well the kind of personal information of others they can see with their own eyes all around them. Would be quite interesting to know what kind of info is required to create account for the person you're trying to "pass the duck" to, for example.

[Murgos]

I don't think that they think their goods are valueless. I'm saying that if someone purchases a small amount of RMT bucks or whatever the service is charging to buy fictional items, and the player doesn't pay because they abused Kwedit, the developer isn't impacted in the same way a company who uses physical materials and compensated labor to create a product that is then stolen and has real world value that can be counted as a loss of assets and cannot be easily duplicated.

Not to put too fine a point on it but this is entirely wrong.

Suppose that I am a company that makes bits.  I pay for rent in a building, I pay for computers, I pay for engineers and artists, I pay for air conditioning, desks, electricity, etc...  Each bit that I produce costs money from compensated labor and physical assets.

Does transferring one set of bits from here to there cost an enormous sum?  No, but the entire infrastructure that got me to the point of being able to transfer those bits did, sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars.

In short making software costs money.

[Musashi]

No.  I'm not saying this isn't a way to get kid's money.  I'm saying who cares.

I'd guess the parents of kids in question, logically enough. Given the "kid's money" is in fact their money.

And is his 'personal information' so important to you?  What kind of personal information does your kid have.  He's a kid ffs.

You seem to be under impression kids live in perfect void with no access to adults and other kids. It's not just what kind of personal information they personally own, but just as well the kind of personal information of others they can see with their own eyes all around them. Would be quite interesting to know what kind of info is required to create account for the person you're trying to "pass the duck" to, for example.

For the first part, yea it's the parents money.  But there's no recourse against not paying since the kid doesn't sign a contract.  And even if he did it wouldn't be enforceable.  So again.  Who cares.

For the second part, your personal information being usurped through unseemly practices is only a detriment to you if you happen to be the one in ten retards who gets scammed by junk mail and a certain prince with variable local.  Are you?  I hope not.  I don't think so, anyway.  Are your kids?  This will show them.  Furthermore, if you think that there is some magical barrier preventing douchebag marketers from getting info on your kids, I wouldn't be so confident. 

Also the only impression I'm under is that this is dumb.  The only thing dumber is getting outraged buy it.

Murgos, he's talking about the fact that this stuff is a one time cost.  For instance, yes it took some money to make a digital hockey mask for your kid's penguin.  But it's only a one time thing.  After it was made it can be reproduced forever with minuscule cost.  Which is different from say, building a house, or even distributing software with physical media.  He just screwed up when he said it was without cost whatsoever.  It's cheap.  Companies don't need to go after you like you went on a spree at Best Buy and defaulted.  They probably will anyway.  But they don't need to as badly.

[Lantyssa]

Out of curiosity, does anyone who thinks this isn't a terrible idea have kids?

[Rendakor]

For the second part, your personal information being usurped through unseemly practices is only a detriment to you if you happen to be the one in ten retards who gets scammed by junk mail and a certain prince with variable local.  Are you?  I hope not.  I don't think so, anyway.  Are your kids?  This will show them.  Furthermore, if you think that there is some magical barrier preventing douchebag marketers from getting info on your kids, I wouldn't be so confident.

I don't think the concern is "douchebag marketers" getting info on your kids...
 

[LK]

Not to put too fine a point on it but this is entirely wrong.

Suppose that I am a company that makes bits.  I pay for rent in a building, I pay for computers, I pay for engineers and artists, I pay for air conditioning, desks, electricity, etc...  Each bit that I produce costs money from compensated labor and physical assets.

Does transferring one set of bits from here to there cost an enormous sum?  No, but the entire infrastructure that got me to the point of being able to transfer those bits did, sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars.

In short making software costs money.

I think we've moved into an area where different, but not necessarily incorrect, thoughts or preferences can conflict.

Kwedit-type systems and the type of large scale operations you're talking about don't appear to be compatible. Kwedit's a bonus, an add-on, a helper to already-established revenue generation plans. Puzzle Pirates has doubloons, right? You don't NEED doubloons to play the game, but they've identified a market segment that wants to have enhanced entertainment from their games and use that to support their business, along with what I assume are other revenue generation plans. Having established that, Kwedit gets tacked on and suddenly you have another avenue of income generation that exists alongside your established, secure transactions. Getting money from Kwedit wouldn't be 100% for goods delivered, but it's still something that, in practice, will likely see a high enough return to justify the loss of easily duplicated items. That loss being negligible since you've already designed and implemented a system with its own support structure, and hopefully have it so these virtual goods do not have an impact outside the player's account.

Yeah, the system will likely be abused by a small segment of the population, but what did you lose? You already have a system in place that is your bread and butter to support your infrastructure. Opening up the ability to use businesses like 7-11 to essentially Paypal the company money is pretty fucking brilliant. They already do this with time codes and other systems you can buy with cash, but that's a hurdle it looks like some businesses want to remove, and allow someone to make a purchase that can be paid later from the internet (and use the guilt of owing to encourage repayment).

If they want to keep playing the game how you want, they won't fuck with the developer. So they get what they want right away and can pay later, or they won't be able to play later if they don't pay. Simple. The "won't be able to play later" is what I am ASSUMING happens for someone who doesn't pay, or some sort of developer-spawned repercussion besides a lowered Kwedit score.

Maybe you need a certain Kwedit Score to get approved for a promise? Oh snap! I didn't read anything about that but it's probably there.

I don't disagree with anything you are saying. This is very much a case-by-case situation that blanket statements would have a hard time working with, even the ones I'm making, because exceptions exist around every corner. Implemented smartly, this works, and man can it work.

[Mrbloodworth]

Someone needs to sign their kid up to how much annoying mail there is.  When they don't pay.

Shit, ill sign myself up and send the bill to random e-mails.

[raydeen]

I think the funniest thing about it all is their choice of anti-viwus pwotection.

CEWTIFIED MCAFEE SECUWE SITE 05-MAR-2010  The McAfee SECUWE™ twustmark onwy appeaws when the website has passed ouw intensive, daiwy secuwity scan. We test fow possible pewsonal infowmation access, links to dangewous sites, phishing, and othew online dangews.

Yes, let's use McAfee, the clownshoes kings of anti-virus to safeguard our site.

[Mrbloodworth]

Please don't type like that, it makes simple people like me get headaches. 

[UnSub]

Out of curiosity, does anyone who thinks this isn't a terrible idea have kids?

I have children (who are too young to use this) and I don't think it is a terrible idea per se. It would beat giving them direct access to my credit card. However, I haven't looked at the details about how paying back the account would work. If Kwedit allowed me to pre-charge an account or something, that might also work.

However... yeah, I can see huge potential problems. In a vaguely related cool story bro, my youngest brother managed to run up a $230 internet bill when he first logged on thanks to all of his 'downloads', which of course fell to the parents to cover. If someone like him had access to this (and he also played Runescape) then it could really be a surprising bill going back to the adult.

[Xuri]

...which they would be under no obligation to actually pay :P

[Nebu]

Out of curiosity, does anyone who thinks this isn't a terrible idea have kids?

The thing I dislike most about this is the idea that it encourages kids to spend beyond their means at a young age.  I have no problem letting my kids spend their money on things that they want, virtual or not, but I like them to manage their money so that they stay within their means.  The whole buy-now-pay-later mentality that has come from the easy access to credit cards is a huge part of the problem with our current economic system.