Bear child top up money spent? The problem is actually with the parents

Under the influence of this new epidemic, most of our friends have become housewives together. Although this is not a good thing for offline businesses, the game circle obviously enjoys the dividend. However, game operators are also upset, and the recent outbreak of “minors’ wrong recharge” incident has also led to a certain rise in complaints about this type of network platforms. According to a number of complaints and related reports, this is basically the case. Mobile phone users woke up and found that they were being brushed off by the bank, Alipay or WeChat. They found their money was take wings to itself. But in fact, since the outbreak of mobile game industry, it is common for minors to use parents’ mobile phones or mobile payment means to recharge games. < / P > < p > in the face of this special situation, oppo recently announced the launch of an anti addiction game system for minors. It is reported that the system will strictly control the payment of certified minors and non real name users, and after the system goes online, users who use oppo mobile phones must first complete real name authentication when paying in the game. < / P > < p > after completing the authentication, minors under 8 years old will be prohibited from recharging. The single recharging amount of users over 8 years old and under 16 years old will not exceed 50 yuan, and the monthly cumulative recharge amount will not exceed 200 yuan, while the single recharging amount of users over 16 years old and under 18 years old will not exceed 100 yuan, and the monthly cumulative recharge amount will not exceed 400 yuan. For users who have not completed real name authentication, they will be forbidden to recharge in the game. < / P > < p > there are very complicated factors behind why the mobile phone manufacturers represented by oppo have launched the anti addiction game system for minors. And why in the domestic market, minors recharge the game in large amounts without their parents’ knowledge, which often appears in the newspapers? In the final analysis, perhaps the disorder of the domestic android market has to bear a lot of responsibility. < / P > < p > in the IOS environment, Apple’s attitude towards consumers can almost be described as patronizing. If a minor uses iPhone or iPad for internal purchase without the permission of parents, parents can choose to call customer service directly for refund, and the reason is that the minor has paid by mistake. If the account is not blacklisted due to repeated refund behavior, 100% refund is usually achieved. < / P > < p > for most parents, the purpose is to recover their losses, and they can basically get what they want. What’s more, after the parents do not know how to recharge, they can also limit the use time of an app through “screen usage time”, or directly limit the payment within the app. It’s the same with Google play, where you can get unconditional refunds and restrict in app purchases. However, there is a lack of leaders like Google or apple who can make a final decision in the domestic android market, which leads to obvious differences in the attitudes of major channels in response to such situations. For example, Tencent, as the leader of the domestic game industry, has a complete set of procedures to deal with misrecharge due to the large number of “primary school students” in its games, and even opened a “juvenile game supervision and education special line”. < / P > < p > many game operators, including Tencent, are not in trouble when they are faced with parents’ refund requests for minors’ purchase behavior. It is understood that at present, the game operators and channel sides basically operate according to the difference of recharge amount. Small recharge within the customer service authority is usually refunded quickly, but the refund of large recharge needs to go through a relatively strict process. < / P > < p > so, are game operators concerned about the consumption of minors? This is what he described after we interviewed relevant people in the game industry. In addition to the special categories for the youth market, in fact, most of the game operators do not value the minors, after all, they are not the main consumer groups of online games from the beginning to the end. < p > < p > after all, the consumption power of minors without income source in the game can not be compared with that of adults. In the past two decades, the mainstream game manufacturers have almost no products specifically for minors, and manufacturers have almost never focused on the topics of concern to minors. < / P > < p > in fact, game operators will not deliberately make it difficult for minors to recharge their money by mistake. It is not only a trade-off between income and cost, but also a legal requirement. According to the regulations, minors belong to persons with limited capacity for conduct, and can carry out civil activities that are compatible with their age and intelligence and benefit purely. However, the consumption behavior of short-term large sum game recharging is obviously neither a pure benefit behavior nor a behavior suitable for their age or intelligence. < / P > < p > therefore, if it can be proved that the game is actually operated by minors themselves, the game operators are obliged to refund. But the problem is often stuck in, how to prove that the money is spent by minors, or how to prove that minors recharge parents do not know. After all, most of the time, minors obtain the payment information of their parents by various means, and recharge the game without the parents’ knowledge, which leads to the most crucial proof information for parents to obtain. What’s more, it’s not that no adults falsely claim that recharging is a minor operation, requiring the operator to refund the event. < / P > < p > on the one hand, because of the operation of their own bear children, parents eager to recover losses; on the other hand, game operators who need to act in accordance with the rules and regulations. Coupled with the lack or annihilation of key evidence, such things often become “luoshengmen”. Before that, as the channel side of the mobile phone manufacturers, it is often because such reports are hard to say. After all, this kind of thing has nothing to do with the mobile phone brand. Today it happens on brand a, and it may appear on Brand B tomorrow. < / P > < p > since it is very difficult to deal with the problem afterwards, the game operators and channels represented by oppo naturally choose to do their work in front of them. They do not simply and roughly cut off the possibility of large consumption of minors from the source. After all, the occurrence of hierarchical restrictions can not only protect the rights of minors to leisure and entertainment, but also minimize the consumption of minors without the knowledge of parents. Of course, oppo is not perfect in strict sense, because minors may use their parents’ identity information to complete real name authentication. Therefore, this needs to be matched with the “children’s mode” of many mobile phone manufacturers to limit the content and time of minors playing with mobile phones, and block the payment function. < p > < p > after all, if a child takes an adult’s bank card and goes to the ATM to withdraw money and spend money indiscriminately, it is obvious that the manufacturer of the ATM can not be asked to make compensation in the end. Therefore, for all kinds of protective hands, the= target=_ blank>Developed a “plug and play” solar power generation scheme, and “5B” won a $12 million round a financing

Author: zmhuaxia