Support NeoGAF

[Minsc]

The thing I don't understand, is to me anyway, it's really not the least bit difficult to figure out if a F2P game uses a model I'd be interested in pursuing or not, and in the few cases where there's a grey area, a short trial or reading impressions about the game is all it takes.

I don't have any inherent hatred for the genre (perhaps category of games is a better label) that so many others possess. I don't think they're a great experience or even fun, but I don't think most sports games are fun either. Just because a game has micro-transactions doesn't mean it shouldn't exist, and the growth in the F2P market is astounding unless I'm mistaken, so the market isn't going away any time soon, I don't see this as a first step to ending F2P games or anything either.

 

[Principate]

Wow, what a ridiculous and moronic comparison. I was going to reply to the rest of your post, but I'm absolutely flabbergasted by this comparison. Wow. Like, just wow.

I like how you didn't refute it at all.

Good Show.

Some of these games are akin to gambling. Gambling is regulated for a reason

 

[TheDarkLink]

Awesome!!!

 

[Metallix87]

I like how you didn't refute it at all.

Good Show.

What is there to refute? You've just compared in-app purchases to being raped by a pedophile. I mean, it's clear to me that nothing I say will change your mind, but rest easy, because the government is here to take care of you and protect you and your kids from those evil mobile developers.

Some of these games are akin to gambling. Gambling is regulated for a reason

Wrong again.

 

[herod]

if this results in the ability to filter out games with IAP it will be an excellent move.

 

[Principate]

What is there to refute? You've just compared in-app purchases to being raped by a pedophile. I mean, it's clear to me that nothing I say will change your mind, but rest easy, because the government is here to take care of you and protect you and your kids from those evil mobile developers.

The point is that governments exists and laws exist to prevent companies and people from taking advantage of you especially children. Coke is very bad addition, gambling is a very bad addictions, many of these games are just as addictive as gambling.

This is a very serious matter for a industry that's pretty much unregulated. Why I used that comparison was to get across the seriousness of the matter.

Children are not allowed to gamble for a reason it's not the parents job only to stop that. It for the good of the child in question.

What is there to refute? You've just compared in-app purchases to being raped by a pedophile. I mean, it's clear to me that nothing I say will change your mind, but rest easy, because the government is here to take care of you and protect you and your kids from those evil mobile developers.



Wrong again.

Some point in regards to arguments your supposed to actually provide arguments against the opposition

It's a similarity well document I can't even believe your unable to see it Saying just no really doesn't cut it if you want to convey a logical argument.

 

[Metallix87]

The point is that governments exists and laws exist to prevent companies and people from taking advantage of you especially children. Coke is very bad addition, gambling is a very bad addictions, many of these games are just as addictive as gambling.

This is a very serious matter for a industry that's pretty much unregulated. Why I used that comparison was to get across the seriousness of the matter.

Children are not allowed to gamble for a reason it's not the parents job only to stop that. It for the good of the child in question.

Again, this is not comparable to gambling. The games ARE free. Parents just need to educate themselves as to what their kids are playing, and ensure that the proper child locks are in effect, and that their kids can't access their credit card information. This is not rocket science, it's Parenting 101.

Some point in regards to arguments your supposed to actually provide arguments against the opposition

It's a similarity well document I can't even believe your unable to see it Saying just no really doesn't cut it if you want to convey a logical argument.

Here's my response: Free to play is like going to a spiritual stone store, and being given a nice rock for free by the clerk. Now, she says she can make the stone more beautiful by polishing it for a small fee. You can also pay her to turn it into a necklace or a ring. The rock itself is still free, but you can pay to make more out of it. Is that gambling? No, it's something free that gives you the option of upgrading in one way or another.

 

[KOHIPEET]

I can only disagree with this. War Thunder on PS4 is completely free to play. IMO the definition is this: A game you can play without paying the developer anything.

Does this fit War Thunder? Perfectly.

If users want to pay for playing it's their choice.

Placing an otherwise F2P game behind a paywall is a different story though.

 

[Principate]

Again, this is not comparable to gambling. The games ARE free. Parents just need to educate themselves as to what their kids are playing, and ensure that the proper child locks are in effect, and that their kids can't access their credit card information. This is not rocket science, it's Parenting 101.

The items aren't many cost money and have a low chance of receiving what you actually want. That is gambling by it's very basic definition which you can't refute or ignore.

You can step into a casino for free getting anything in it costs money.

Many of these games are the Casino. A nicer rapping but the Casino none the less.

 

[Metallix87]

You can step into a casino for free getting anything in it costs money.

Many of these games are the Casino. A nicer rapping but the Casino none the less.

No, because the vast majority allow you to play some basic experience without paying.

 

[danmaku]

Unless they completely eliminate the 0.00 price tag on the page, which they won't, this solves nothing. They'll add some warning labels that most parents won't read, rename the category to something like "freemium", and everything continues as before.

Most? That's far from obvious. But anyway, some of them will read the warnings (like some of them actually read PEGI labels) and will take precautions. Some of them won't, but it's still an improvement. It's not about removing responsibility from parents, it's about helping them instead of making their task harder.

 

[Ethranes]

It's a good start, but they should also:

- Enable a cooling off period of 24 hours or so for digital purchases that haven't been used/downloaded/whatever with a full refund if requested.

This is already in effect in the UK, any purchase can be refunded within 7 days.

 

[Principate]

No, because the vast majority allow you to play some basic experience without paying.

That's not a counter not remotely and you know it. There's unregulated gambling going on and you just want to ignore it.

By games children can play and are targeted towards. It's an issue that's needs to be dealt with not ignored.

That you can can still play some of it is the trick a very well used researched and reported trick. It's the hook like £5 free on a betting website.

 

[Xater]

so only Dota not getting banned.

Well Loadout, Path of Exile and Warframe should be fine as well.

 

[Lashley]

Good.

I don't mind F2P games with cosmetic MT though like GW2, but things like WoW charging AND asking for MT is ludicrous.

 

[Metallix87]

That's not a counter not remotely and you know it. There's unregulated gambling going on and you just want to ignore it.

By games children can play and are targeted towards. It's an issue that's needs to be dealt with not ignored.

That you can can still play some of it is the trick a very well used researched and reported trick. It's the hook like £5 free on a betting website.

Again, the comparison is illogical. £5 only gets you sp far, but FTP games are full games with some content, usually cosmetic in nature, locked away.

 

[Mithos]

Maybe the ban we "need" is if your game/app have IAP your not allowed on the FREE or $0 pages on appstore/googlestore.

 

[Metallix87]

Maybe the ban we "need" is if your game/app have IAP your not allowed on the FREE or $0 pages on appstore/googlestore.

Now THAT would be real change that could make a bit of difference, but again, parents need to become more active in learning about what their kids are playing.

 

[Minsc]

Well Loadout, Path of Exile and Warframe should be fine as well.

From the quote in the OP:

‘The use of the word ‘free’ (or similar unequivocal terms) as such, and without any appropriate qualifications, should only be allowed for games which are indeed free in their entirety, or in other words which contain no possibility of making in-app purchases, not even on an optional basis’, says a Commission statement.

Sounds like a game can't be called free if it contains any elements (even cosmetic) that one can purchase. So I'm not sure PoE would be allowed to call itself Free.

Edit: It's even worse sounding for PoE if you use the first sentence:

The European Commission has indicated it wants to stop games calling themselves free if they rely on micrortansactions to make money.

Wouldn't you say PoE indeed relies on micro-tansactions to make money? If the game did not have the store where you can buy credit/etc, then the game would not make any money.

 

[Haunted]

Again, the comparison is illogical £5 only gets you sp far, but FTP games are full games with some content, usually cosmetic in nature, locked away.

Oh man, I wish! The vast majority of F2P games on the various mobile stores are not full games with only cosmetic content locked away. There's a reason why there's only a handful of F2P games accepted as having fair and consumer-serving business models (Dota 2, PoE, a few others).


Even if this is "just" regulating the name, going up against egregious deceit in advertising is a good thing. I do hope the people in this thread riling against this initiative are opposed to this because it isn't doing enough.

 

[Metallix87]

I think the vast majority of F2P games on the various mobile stores are not full games with cosmetic content locked away.

There's a reason why there's only a handful of F2P games accepted as having fair and consumer-serving business models.

The F2P model as a whole is flawed, but again, I'm not arguing that here. I'm saying this legislation does nothing more than try to assure parents that they can continue being careless without worry.

 

[Vagabundo]

This is already in effect in the UK, any purchase can be refunded within 7 days.

Are you sure it covers all the DD services? I'm not so sure, a lot of them are based in different countries.

 

[Minsc]

Now THAT would be real change that could make a bit of difference, but again, parents need to become more active in learning about what their kids are playing.

Then where do you put them? In the paid section? Then all the top listings for paid apps will be replaced by $0 titles, and if you make a new section for $0 apps with micro-transactions, they will just reside there, and kids will still find them with no troubles.

 

[MikeJAMoran]

Which was elected by people we in the EU elected.

EUCEPTION

 

[Principate]

Again, the comparison is illogical. £5 only gets you sp far, but FTP games are full games with some content, usually cosmetic in nature, locked away.

They aren't all like that and you know that. Heck a very large proportion (that's growing) aren't which is itself the issue.

The F2P model as a whole is flawed, but again, I'm not arguing that here. I'm saying this legislation does nothing more than try to assure parents that they can continue being careless without worry.

There's a very large proportion of parents don't even know it's an issue that's the point.

 

[ihearthawthats]

Well Loadout, Path of Exile and Warframe should be fine as well.

That's the thing tho, correct me if I'm wrong but this affects all f2p. People assume that all f2p is bad and that's where I feel this solution falls flat. Do people think gamers will move to ad supported games? I'm doubtful as the quantity of f2p vs ad supported is pretty significant.

Imo there are many reasonable f2ps. If an f2p is unreasonable, it worries me that a person chooses the buy button over the uninstall button. I think the problems run deeper than being called f2p.

 

[Metallix87]

Then where do you put them? In the paid section? Then all the top listings for paid apps will be replaced by $0 titles, and if you make a new section for $0 apps with micro-transactions, they will just reside there, and kids will still find them with no troubles.

I'm not sure what the ideal move would be there, but it would be more substantial than a name change.

I agree with you, though, Minsc: This is big government stepping in to make it okay for parents to continue to be irresponsible, all while not actually doing anything meaningful to the mobile market. This is a whole lot of nothing made to assure parents that something is being done.

 

[Mithos]

Then where do you put them? In the paid section? Then all the top listings for paid apps will be replaced by $0 titles, and if you make a new section for $0 apps with micro-transactions, they will just reside there, and kids will still find them with no troubles.

Maybe games/apps with IAP shouldn't be "free"?
Want to have an IAP in your game/app, to be allowed in appstore/googlestore, charge $0.01/€0.01 minimum.

 

[Ethranes]

Are you sure it covers all the DD services? I'm not so sure, a lot of them are based in different countries.

Yeah the UK's 7 day return policy covers all digital purchases too, is how we can get refunds out of steam although they don't do them.

 

[Dr. Zoidberg]

I never thought I'd see the European Commission become a bigger 'nanny-state' than the US.

It reminds me of how people in the 70s and 80s got all upset because children's cartoons were based on toy lines and people complained that they were just 30 minute toy commercials. Thinking back on it now, those shows were in no way a hard sell and they come off as positively tame in the face of modern day free-to-play games on phones and tablets.

 

[Haunted]

This is big government stepping in to make it okay for parents to continue to be irresponsible, all while not actually doing anything meaningful to the mobile market. This is a whole lot of nothing made to assure parents that something is being done.

This is exactly the kind of toxic thinking that prevents anything from happening in the US.

Rules and regulations are important and protecting your citizens from unscrupulous companies that are looking to exploit people without regard or respect for ethical business behaviour is important. This isn't "big government" stepping in, this is the [EU] government doing their fucking job.

 

[Minsc]

Maybe games/apps with IAP shouldn't be "free"?

Well, that seems to be exactly what this is proposing, I'm just curious / confused at what the real outcome will be. A "not free" game that costs $0 doesn't seem too different than a free one with IAP to me.

I'm not sure what the ideal move would be there, but it would be more substantial than a name change.

I can only think of one solution that would have any impact. Create a committee to review the games individually and actually ban the games from being sold at all that have micro-transactions which could attract children in to paying for them. This becomes a little problematic when there's like 1,000+ games being developed a week that use this model though.

 

[mustafa]

Up next on the EU's docket...

- Publishers banned from labeling their game as costing only $60 if it has DLC. You see, consumers have no self control and are helpless against the manipulative publishers, who force them to buy an endless stream of skins, map packs, etc. New price for the Sims 3: $1,000,000. If you can't label your game as costing $0 if it has DLC, then why would you ever be able to label your game as costing $60? We can't allow consumers to be misled.

- Game of the Year editions banned unless they are the exact same version of the game that won the game of the year award. If any of the content in the game of the year version is different, then the consumer is being unwittingly led to slaughter by the publisher, who is selling them a product that is clearly different than what is being advertised. The terminology "Game of the Year Edition" can only be used if the game won said award from an accredited gaming institution. A new gaming oversight commission will be established by the EU to conduct annual audits of accredited gaming institutions to ensure that they are unbiased in their awarding of the game of the year awards.

On a more serious note, my opinion is that (1) the term "free to play" is factually correct and not misleading, (2) there are already adequate checks and balances in place, such as app rating systems, written reviews, and game review sites, that allow consumers to make informed decisions about their gaming habits, and (3) if it really is the government's job to prevent people from making stupid decisions with their own money, then (a) is "free-to-play" really a priority in a world with so much other f'd up stuff, and (b) are people with iPads and iPhones really the segment of the population that we need to save from themselves.

 

[Senor Kami]

Not shocked. These are the same people who jumped on MS because they did crazy things like include MP3 playback and a web browser in the OS. Europe is consumer protection gone horribly awry.

‘The use of the word ‘free’ (or similar unequivocal terms) as such, and without any appropriate qualifications, should only be allowed for games which are indeed free in their entirety, or in other words which contain no possibility of making in-app purchases, not even on an optional basis’, says a Commission statement.

To me, that's like saying a movie theater can't call a $0 movie ticket free if they also sell stuff like popcorn, candy, and drinks. What do you even call these games then? They are literally free to play but now that term is banned. None of the F2P games I've played would fit their description but I've played hundreds of hours of F2P games and spent a grand total of $0 on them. How is that not a free game?

 

[Metallix87]

This is exactly the kind of toxic thinking that prevents anything from happening in the US.

Rules and regulations are important and protecting your citizens from unscrupulous companies that are looking to exploit people without regard or respect for ethical business behaviour is important. This isn't "big government" stepping in, this is the [EU] government doing their fucking job.

If "doing their fucking job" means doing nothing, then yes, you're right. They've changed the name of something, but have not actually changed it or changed why it causes problems.

To me, that's like saying a movie theater can't call a $0 movie ticket free if they also sell stuff like popcorn, candy, and drinks. What do you even call these games then? They are literally free to play but now that term is banned. None of the F2P games I've played would fit their description but I've played hundreds of hours of F2P games and spent a grand total of $0 on them. How is that not a free game?

Exactly.

 

[Principate]

If "doing their fucking job" means doing nothing, then yes, you're right. They've changed the name of something, but have not actually changed it or changed why it causes problems.

Where forcing a company to advertise hidden parts of their business model is doing nothing.

Ok then.... It's a good thing you don't set laws.

 

[Ethranes]

Fantastic news, the free section of the iOS app store is a mine field of knowing what's an actual game and what's a money hole.

 

[FlyinJ]

I wish they would take this a step further, and label exactly what the game is.

For instance :

DOTA 2 - Extra characters cost more money, fair amount of content given at outset. Not a scam.

Tiny Death Star - Zero skill required, only meaningful interaction is paying to speed up looking at rudimentary art. Cynical scam targeted at people who have no impulse control/are amused by staring at a blinking light.

 

[jimi_dini]

This is exactly the kind of toxic thinking that prevents anything from happening in the US.

Wat?
They will simply use another name. Nothing will be changed except the name for it. Nothing else is happening. It won't solve anything.

This actually won't change a thing... just the name itself.

^^ this. It's totally silly.

who'd rather the EU really do nothing about this at all

They literally don't do anything except for a name change. People and especially children will still get ripped off. For me that is nothing.

 

[Haunted]

If "doing their fucking job" means doing nothing, then yes, you're right. They've changed the name of something, but have not actually changed it or changed why it causes problems.

If we're both thinking that this doesn't do enough to stop deceitful advertising and exploitative business practices, then we're in agreement.

I just get the feeling there are some people in this thread who'd rather the EU really do nothing about this at all and just let "the market regulate itself" or some shit, which would be exactly what these scammy publishers are hoping for (and successfully lobbying for in the US).

I wish they would take this a step further, and label exactly what the game is.

For instance :

DOTA 2 - Extra characters cost more money, fair amount of content given at outset. Not a scam.

Tiny Death Star - Zero skill required, only meaningful interaction is paying to speed up looking at rudimentary art. Cynical scam targeted at people who have no impulse control/are amused by staring at a blinking light.

That's supposedly what reviews are for.

But then you look at the paid reviews at major mobile sites and the combination of astroturfing + manipulation of reviews in the app store review section itself and yeah... they've corrupted that system of intended checks and balances as well.

edit: also as a minor correction, Dota 2 gives you all the characters for free.

 

[Mithos]

Well, that seems to be exactly what this is proposing, I'm just curious / confused at what the real outcome will be. A "not free" game that costs $0 doesn't seem too different than a free one with IAP to me.

That's why I also said maybe a $0.01/€0.01 should be mandatory for any game/app that have IAP.
Should stop quite a lot of those "random/misstake/accidental" downloads.

 

[elektrixx]

Oh well. They can either return to calling them demos or shareware.

I don't think this resolves anything.

 

[Kosma]

Great ruling.

EU is really getting strict about terminology and names and I like it.

This ties in to the current Cheese Wars as well.

 

[Metallix87]

If we're both thinking that this doesn't do enough to stop deceitful advertising and exploitative business practices, then we're in agreement.

I just get the feeling there are some people in this thread who'd rather the EU really do nothing about this at all and just let "the market regulate itself" or some shit, which would be exactly what these scammy publishers are hoping for (and successfully lobbying for in the US).

Again, you're looking at the problem in the wrong light. The solution is education. Specifically, parents getting educated. All the name changes and labels are meaningless until parents wake up and realize what is going on. I work with kids every day, and you'd be shocked how ignorant their parents are with regards to what they play. Ratings aren't even noticed or acknowledged, even after they are brought to their attention.

 

[ihearthawthats]

Maybe games/apps with IAP shouldn't be "free"?
Want to have an IAP in your game/app, to be allowed in appstore/googlestore, charge $0.01/€0.01 minimum.

Disagree completely.

First, it punishes educated gamers who don't fall victim. I almost wanna point out the effects of drm to non-pirates, kinda similar but much different.

Second, if a child gets his parent's cc, what difference is 99c to 1c? I think the 1c makes the parent more willing and makes the child more open to future purchases (I.e. foot-in-door).

 

[Principate]

Again, you're looking at the problem in the wrong light. The solution is education. Specifically, parents getting educated. All the name changes and labels are meaningless until parents wake up and realize what is going on. I work with kids every day, and you'd be shocked how ignorant their parents are with regards to what they play. Ratings aren't even noticed or acknowledged, even after they are brought to their attention.

Again it's a step towards it, it's naïve to think you'll suddenly be able to educate the majority of parents about these things. Putting clearly on the game details and advertisements themselves goes a long way in educating parents what these games actually entail. It helps them make an informed decision if companies properly advertise their products and don't hide things.

 

[caleb1915]

The thing I don't understand, is to me anyway, it's really not the least bit difficult to figure out if a F2P game uses a model I'd be interested in pursuing or not, and in the few cases where there's a grey area, a short trial or reading impressions about the game is all it takes.

I don't have any inherent hatred for the genre (perhaps category of games is a better label) that so many others possess. I don't think they're a great experience or even fun, but I don't think most sports games are fun either. Just because a game has micro-transactions doesn't mean it shouldn't exist, and the growth in the F2P market is astounding unless I'm mistaken, so the market isn't going away any time soon, I don't see this as a first step to ending F2P games or anything either.

There are some good f2p games, the only problem (and I believe they all suffer from this to some degree) is that they pseudo-limit your progress a certain amount depending on the audacity of the app .

They slowly make me build up a feeling of disinterest the further I progress in the game; without paying for some kind of currency, item, xp boost, etc.,..Then I never felt like spending my money to rekindle that interest so I eventually stop playing lol.

I dunno what that has to do with the thread but yeah, I think you're right. There won't be much progress if any from this new ban. I think most people understand now what a f2p game model looks like. It's popular not only because it's free, but because it's a low level of entry that enables you to spend however much you want for the experience you can afford. Which fuckin sucks.

 

[Minsc]

Where forcing a company to advertise hidden parts of their business model is doing nothing.

Ok then.... It's a good thing you don't set laws.

It is not really hidden though is it? Right through the app store, there is a field dedicated to any IAP the app has, and it tells you what it is and how much it costs. So you can tell before even downloading the app if there is a "$4.99 for 299 crystals / $19.99 for 1000 crystals" etc or if it's "$2.99 for sticker collection" or whatever.

I'm in agreement perhaps it should be even more prominent, but I am just not sure that will change these fringe cases with parents who have no interest in knowing anything about what they provide their kids with to play.

 

[Longsword]

The headline of Metro is a bit of a clickbait. If you actually read the entire press release, the commission wants clearer labelling for the Apps, not to ban anything. In fact Apple already enforced that the Free apps with IAP should clearly be labelled so, and that has already happened –see for yourself.


Also remember: EU commission has no legislative power, this will be down to the member countries themselves. UK already published their own guidelines, which are very well written and will make App store better place, but will not change the F2P games you know in any way. See for yourself (very good read, and all Apps released in UK will have to follow these):


In a nutshell: nothing is getting banned, but Apps should be much more indicative of any IAPs they contain, which is a good thing IMHO. Here is the actual press release by the European Commission.

 

[Mithos]

Second, if a child gets his parent's cc, what difference is 99c to 1c? I think the 1c makes the parent more willing and makes the child more open to future purchases (I.e. foot-in-door).

The difference is that I can download free/$0 games/apps without a code/password or whatnot, if I have to pay something it asks to verify with a code/password.

Should stop kids from downloading stuff that cost money and thus contains IAP (if that became a rule). Now if parents have given the code/password to the kids... Well then that's on them and shame on them.