blankempathy
Member
I think it's good idea.
You assume all parents are that tech savy or care enough to bother.Yeah. Parent makes a password....child has to know the password to access such sites.....pretty simple no?
I think it's good idea.
You assume all parents are that tech savy or care enough to bother.Yeah. Parent makes a password....child has to know the password to access such sites.....pretty simple no?
People are okay with this because it's Nintendo? Imagine the shit storm if this was Sony or Microsoft.
People are okay with this because it's Nintendo? Imagine the shit storm if this was Sony or Microsoft.
People are okay with this because it's Nintendo? Imagine the shit storm if this was Sony or Microsoft.
Pretty sure the Wii U has a similar "fee" for verifying age with a credit card, it's just linked to a NNID instead of the internet.
The way it's framed about just being an internet filter you have to pay to remove and the negative response in this thread is pretty obnoxious for such a piece of non-news.
Obviously just a legal thing. See no issue. It's 30 cents and nobody will use it any ways as a browser.
Not sure why 30 cents though....
Kids dont have credit/debit cards
They already have parental controls, but during a PR disaster the media tends to not place the blame on the parents who failed to turn on the parental controls (if they even mention the parental controls at all).
The way to avoid that is to make parental controls default to being turned on so that they are opt-out. In order for that to work, you need to have a mechanism to prove that an adult is doing the opt-out.
It'd be interesting to hear ideas for what alternative such mechanisms there would be. The only practical one I can think of is a credit card charge.
There's an obvious way to cover the cost of the transaction in a customer-neutral way: add the cost to the user's account in credit.
Alternatively, eat the cost.
Alternatively, put a pending charge for a random amount and reverse the hold when the user has verified the amount.
Alternatively, don't charge the card at all and just use the luhn checksum to verify that it's a plausible card or do a CVV auth check.
Verifying won't work well if the kid can just grab their parents credit card and input it themselves. By charging 0.30 cent, it will show up on the bill and the parents can see something like "3DS internet Filter removed" on it. There's also a paper trail just in case a parent caught their kids watching porn on the 3DS, so Nintendo has no liability at all.
There's an obvious way to cover the cost of the transaction in a customer-neutral way: add the cost to the user's account in credit.
Alternatively, eat the cost.
Alternatively, put a pending charge for a random amount and reverse the hold when the user has verified the amount.
Alternatively, don't charge the card at all and just use the luhn checksum to verify that it's a plausible card or do a CVV auth check.
People are okay with this because it's Nintendo? Imagine the shit storm if this was Sony or Microsoft.
Lmao at people shitting on the idea. You would be surprised by the amount of stupid parents not doing their parenting properly. Nintendo is trying to avoid the blame when children use their 3DS to view mature content.
You have to know parental locks don't always work, that's the reason why people are watching porn with 3DS as stated in the latest research.
Don't blame Nintedno, blame the stupid parents! Necessary evil I'd say.
It's not about if it is the only way for children to access internet, it's about not being blamed for stupid parents not doing their jobs lol
Which cheeks? Wait are we still talking about porn or Nintendo?http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=884312
Won't somebody please think of the 1%!
The vast majority of Nintendo's (Wii U) eshop users are men aged 18-34, perfect for porn watching.
This is just a scam to push credit card attachment rates up to 99%.
This post was tongue-in-cheek.
While I don't care, I think the people that don't like this disagree with the principle of charging and not returning the money. It's not hard to AVV a credit card.Considering how many kids use the console, I'm perfectly fine with this.
Its not like they'll make some massive profit off if a $0.30 charge, and i doubt anybody is going to miss their fraction of a dollar.
Considering how many kids use the console, I'm perfectly fine with this.
Its not like they'll make some massive profit off if a $0.30 charge, and i doubt anybody is going to miss their fraction of a dollar.
So unless you have a credit card, the device is gimped?
Who thought this was a good idea?!?!
How is this a good idea? Do parental controls not click into people's brains when they read this?
Other adult users shouldn't have to pay a tax for their lack of effort, though.
Nintendo is trying to do exactly that. Avoid blame...by taxing those otherwise unaffected. That's not others' concern, and it shouldn't be. It's Nintendo's worry, so they should foot the bill if they want to cover their own asses. It's not my responsibility. (not that I would even want to use the browser at all). Them passing their issue onto other customers is the principle that sucks.
.
What a stupid thing to charge money for. If this was Microsoft doing it this thread would be a shitstorm.
It's approximately 30 cents. Hell, we don't even know the USD price. It could be even lower.
What PR disasters have there been from anyone using a handheld gaming device to go on a website?
I don't see any PR disasters or media stories of kids visiting adult sites on their phones, and there's a lot more of them using those devices. It's like a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist.
Do you not remember "Kid finds Porn on used 3DS?" or "Dirty messages being sent over Swapnote to children" Hell they had to remove Swapnote because of that whole thing. Nintendo has an image of being child friendly, Phones dont.
Censorship is not bad? What?
Do you not remember "Kid finds Porn on used 3DS?" or "Dirty messages being sent over Swapnote to children" Hell they had to remove Swapnote because of that whole thing. Nintendo has an image of being child friendly, Phones dont.
They could at least do like PayPal, they validate your account by charging your card a small amount but it's refunded afterwards.
This would have been the perfect solution.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=884312
Won't somebody please think of the 1%!
The vast majority of Nintendo's (Wii U) eshop users are men aged 18-34, perfect for porn watching.
This is just a scam to push credit card attachment rates up to 99%.
This post was tongue-in-cheek.
That mentality is exactly the reason why America will never have a proper health care system. "Why do I have to take care of somebody else's problem? It's not my fault that blah blah blah..."
Yes, you're right, it's not your responsibility, but that's not how a healthy society works. Try give a little to the community. I will gladly pay the $0.30 if it means children will be safe from adult websites and online sexual predators.
Also, as an adult, it's not like you have to rely on 3DS for internet access, so you don't really "need" to pay Nintendo. Yes, it'd be nice to have it for free, but I wouldn't be so upset about not being able to use 3DS for internet.
Should prevent unfortunate 'my child found porn on the 3ds'-esque news stories from coming up
Yeah, once again, there was this thing called a Gold Account.What a stupid thing to charge money for. If this was Microsoft doing it this thread would be a shitstorm.
It's not really censorship, it's just locked out until you verify with a credit card. Also, it's to help protect kids, whom this system is primarily aimed towards. If you are an adult, I don't really see the issue (I also find it hard to imagine any adult using a 3DS to view pornography, but whatever).Censorship is not bad? What?
I have never stored my credit card info with Nintendo. Every time you make a purchase they ask you if you want it stored. Just select "No".The price doesn't matter. Anyone else and this entire thread is nothing but accusations that this is to get our credit cards.
They should just charge $1 extra for the system and make the transaction fee free to avoid these sorts of backlash.