Our Opinion: Who's best to control Candy Crush?

News Tribune Editorial

U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley is taking on Candy Crush - as well as other game apps that encourage users (often children) to pay money for upgrades.

The Kansas City Star recently reported Hawley last week introduced legislation that would ban "pay-to-win" apps he said are targeted at children.

"When a game is designed for kids, game developers shouldn't be allowed to monetize addiction," Hawley said in a statement announcing the bill. "And when kids play games designed for adults, they should be walled off from compulsive microtransactions. Game developers who knowingly exploit children should face legal consequences."

We're not huge fans of "in-app purchases" that prey on our inherent desire to win. Who doesn't want the advantage of power-ups, extra lives and bigger weapons?

But we are generally in favor of free markets and capitalism.

The revenue model for video games has changed, and continues to change. What Hawley is opposing is the modern day equivalent of pumping another quarter into the arcade game so you can continue where you left off.

Yes, the amounts are higher, sometimes exorbitantly high. But this is how game developers profit from their apps these days.

While Hawley singled out Candy Crush as an example, a better example is Fortnite.

Fortnite is a hugely popular shooter-survival game that lets up to 100 players battle it out with various weapons in fictitious settings. The game is a "cross platform," meaning it's available on various phones and game consoles.

This "free" game has become a cultural phenomenon, and earns hundreds of millions every month. In 2018, it earned an estimated $2.4 billion. That's all profits from gamers who purchase the latest "battle pass" and other upgrades.

Some "in-app" purchases are reasonable, while others do essentially prey on children.

But the best control of this - like requests to buy candy in checkout lines - isn't government. It's good parenting.

News Tribune

Upcoming Events