{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
2/28/2018 6:26:06 PM
3
Although I guess you can look at this as a win. I look at it like this. There is a big 17+ label on a bunch of games. Last time I played most of those it filled with a lot of kiddos. Not sure that a "in game purchases" Label is what convinces parents to not buy the game. They already let them run around in GTA in the strip clubs.
English
-
Who's responsible for the -17 getting a copy of that? Either the store who sold to them, their parents, or both. Responsibility still doesn't lie with the developer/distributor.
-
Totally agree. My point was if parents are already buying 17+ games for their kids they will also buy games with in game purchases for their kids.
-
Yes agree. Sorry if in confused your meaning. Over all though it can still have an effect. I think the amount of kids who have [u]disposable[/u] and [u]un-monitored [/u] funds to purchase are less then the kids who max a parents card without them knowing what was happening.
