During the Spring Festival, a child recharged 13,000 RMB for the game Honor of Kings, and his parents were so anxious that they posted a message asking for help.

King of Glory won a perfect victory during the Spring Festival, with astonishing sales. The Snake Year limited edition was sold out, followed by the Valentine's Day limited edition and a skin storm, which almost drove the entire community crazy. However, behind this carnival festival, who is paying for its victory?

Limited skin discount, is it a benefit or a trap?

A large number of players are satisfied with this year's Spring Festival benefits, and toast to King of Glory for creating a data myth. As long as you have a rational consumption concept, basically the game can't "cheat" you much money. Every time King of Glory launches a skin, it will be hotly discussed. Sometimes it is about the design, but this limited skin was rated as a "consumption trap" by a few people. It is obviously a family reunion festival, but it locks them firmly in the virtual world. They have to recharge and rebate to buy skins, and they have to go online diligently to avoid falling behind. It exerts social pressure and packages consumption as a necessity. Adults still know how to think and weigh the importance of this money, but minors are always the group that suffers.

Recently, a 15-year-old boy made the news for recharging 1.3 RMB in Honor of Kings during the Spring Festival. His worried parents posted a message asking for help and hoped that the official would return the huge amount of money. According to the rules of Honor of Kings, if the recharging player is a minor and the behavior is not approved by the parents, the full recharge fee will be returned.

Who should be held responsible when minors top up huge sums of money?

Tencent's refund behavior has received polarized reactions from the public. Some people think from a businessman's perspective that it is the father's fault if the child is not raised and educated, and that educating the child is the parents' responsibility. They blame the game for the temptation of consumption due to impulse consumption. Finally, some people use being busy as an excuse, saying that they cannot fully control their children's online behavior, which led to the incident.

As a parent, I also decisively criticized the game for its mistake. The refund behavior did not seem particularly great. Instead, it showed that the game company had no sense of responsibility and lacked social sensitivity towards underage consumption. The platform should have proactively responded to parents' requests for help instead of waiting for things to ferment before processing the refund.

Netizens with a neutral stance believe that the game company could consider introducing more comprehensive spending restrictions and parental monitoring, making spending records transparent, and setting spending limits to prevent the same thing from happening again and again. For this incident, do you think the game company is not responsible? Or is it that the parents neglected to teach their children?