Support NeoGAF

[Principate]

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.

Some are a lot aren't. Hell I barely see it until you actually download the game.

Which is the point, parents don't play these games. Imagine if games didn't have age ratings on the boxes, that's essentially what's happening in regards to the content of the product in these store fronts.

 

[Arthea]

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.

I read it as "screw consumers", they should protect themselves without any help from outside.
Nothing what's in fact isn't completely free to play, shouldn't be called so, because most people don't do their research before playing a free game, it even sounds ridiculous, then there are kids, and then these games usually are very addictive, and that's how they get their money. When someone sees beforehand that a game is pay to play, he or she might not even touch the game.

 

[Haunted]

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.

It's not like this initiative we're talking about here would prevent any of what you're proposing. They should do more, yes! They should try to educate parents directly and clearly, though it's not an easy thing to do.

But I don't think that changing names and labels to something clearer is completely meaningless, I think this is an initiative that could help educate and alert parents to the dangers of these F2P traps. It's not the solution to the problem, but it's a first step (and one that forces the companies in question to be the ones getting proactive, having to change their approach, which is a good thing).

But the efforts should not end there and I don't think anyone's arguing that.

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.

Yup. In fact, I'd argue that this is a first step in educating the parents, by making the names and labels clearer to understand.

 

[Omerta]

If they ban the term "free to play", how will we know to avoid it?

 

[Minsc]

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.

I can't download free stuff without a code/password on iOS... if that is the case on the marketplace/hardware you use, I believe it should be changed to defaulting to making you submit your password for any purchase, even free ones.

 

[Metallix87]

It's not like this initiative we're talking about here would prevent any of what you're proposing. They should do more, yes! They should try to educate parents directly and clearly, though it's not an easy thing to do.

But I don't think that changing names and labels to something clearer is completely meaningless, I think this is an initiative that could help educate and alert parents to the dangers of these F2P traps. It's not the solution to the problem, but it's a first step (and one that forces the companies in question to be the ones getting proactive, having to change their approach, which is a good thing).

They're not going to change their approach. They're going to rename them quickly and call it a day.

 

[Toadette]

RIP the entire App Store

one can hope

 

[Principate]

They're not going to change their approach. They're going to rename them quickly and call it a day.

Not if they're forced to detail their micro-transactions in a clear way on their store page.

 

[ihearthawthats]

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.

So basically you want kids to stop playing f2p completely, even if they are reasonable?

 

[LoveCake]

They will just change the name & call the "free-to-play" games/apps something else.

 

[Metallix87]

Not if they're forced to detail their micro-transactions in a clear way on their store page.

"Clear" is a subjective term.

So basically you want kids to stop playing f2p completely, even if they are reasonable?

I'd be okay with that. I think mobile games, in general, are detrimental to kids, because it teaches them to devalue art and entertainment, while also providing little developmental benefit, since most are basic, cheap time sinks.

 

[Huggers]

There's not really downsides I agree, but instead of being in a section of free apps, they will just be in a section of apps that cost $0 to download (and not be labeled as free).

This will affect their popularity though. Claiming something as 'free' is a big selling point to the uninformed

 

[Principate]

"Clear" is a subjective term.

That's why regulations exist.

 

[Senor Kami]

I don't even see how this protects children. Don't iPad and Android devices have a setting that lets them disable or require a password for in-app purchases. Why can't that be used?

If you're a parent and there is a device that can potentially lead to problematic situations but the device itself offers measures to prevent them yet you refuse to use them, isn't that your fault? If this device is really so troublesome, should you really be giving it to a 5-year old for unrestricted and unsupervised use? I didn't get a TV in my room until I was like 12 and a TV has way fewer issues than an iPad.

 

[Principate]

I don't even see how this protects children. Don't iPad and Android devices have a setting that lets them disable or require a password for in-app purchases. Why can't that be used?

If you're a parent and there is a device that can potentially lead to problematic situations but the device itself offers measures to prevent them yet you refuse to use them, isn't that your fault? If this device is really so troublesome, should you really be giving it to a 5-year old for unrestricted and unsupervised use? I didn't get a TV in my room until I was like 12 and a TV has way fewer issues than an iPad.

This is for all f2p games not just ios, android exists, pc exists, a lot of things exist.

 

[Mithos]

I can't download free stuff without a code/password on iOS... if that is the case on the marketplace/hardware you use, I believe it should be changed to defaulting to making you submit your password for any purchase, even free ones.

I'm using Android, and yes, it never ask for code/password downloading free stuff.

The problem is, if the kids ask, a parent is more likely to tap in a code/password if the game/app the kid wants is free, but when asked money for it (even if it is a very small amount) my experience have been they don't buy and download it for their kids. (anecdotal evidence and such ;P)

So basically you want kids to stop playing f2p completely, even if they are reasonable?

If the game/app do not have an IAP, I have no problem with kids playing them, if it contain IAP and the game is marketed towards kids then YES, will have to be my answer.

 

[Atomsky]

In Japan they always label correctly: 基本無料(Basic gameplay free).

I wonder how hard it is to translate into English accurately... Oops.

 

[Metallix87]

I don't even see how this protects children. Don't iPad and Android devices have a setting that lets them disable or require a password for in-app purchases. Why can't that be used?

If you're a parent and there is a device that can potentially lead to problematic situations but the device itself offers measures to prevent them yet you refuse to use them, isn't that your fault? If this device is really so troublesome, should you really be giving it to a 5-year old for unrestricted and unsupervised use? I didn't get a TV in my room until I was like 12 and a TV has way fewer issues than an iPad.

Bingo.

 

[Principate]

Bingo.

Many don't know about them hell I'd say the majority. Just because you don't know that a bank is screwing you over doesn't mean it's ok for the government to do nothing.

PPI is major example of this. It's why consumer services exist.

 

[Rhomega Beta]

Well there goes World of Tanks.

 

[Haunted]

They're not going to change their approach. They're going to rename them quickly and call it a day.

And hopefully, less people will fall into these traps when they're alerted to the fact that this "free" game isn't actually free beforehand.

 

[Metallix87]

And hopefully, less people will fall into these traps when they're alerted to the fact that this free game isn't actually free beforehand.

I hope you're right, but I really thinking you're giving the average person way too much credit.

 

[Senor Kami]

This is for all f2p games not just ios, android exists, pc exists, a lot of things exist.

If it's on a PC, wouldn't that require you having to go in your mom's purse and your dad's wallet and literally stealing their credit card info to plug it into the game? Is there any point where it's acceptable to teach your kids not to steal money from you?

I feel like once a kid has been taught that money doesn't grow on trees and understands it (which should be by like 3rd grade) you can't keep blaming others if your kid is stealing money from you. If it's a really young child like a 4 year old... again, maybe giving them unrestricted and unsupervised access to these things isn't the best parenting idea.

I don't see how not calling free games "free games" is going to stop a 4th grader from stealing from their parents or will stop a four year old from making purchases if you give them unrestricted and unsupervised access to a device.

 

[Longsword]

Well I tried... but let's try again:

1) European Commission has no power to legislate. This is down to individual states.

2) Commission wants clear labeling, there is nothing indicating they want to ban anything at all (App economy employs 1 million people in Europe, and most revenue comes from free Apps). This is clear in the actual EU commission Press Release.

3) UK already passed guidelines for F2P, and they are very reasonable and ban nothing.

4) Apple already changed the rules so Free Apps with IAP have to be clearly labeled to show they have IAPs.

I find the tone of this thread sensationalist compared to what is actually happening.

 

[Haunted]

I hope you're right, but I really thinking you're giving the average person way too much credit.

You can't make stupid people less stupid, but you can try to prevent companies from exploiting said stupidity, and I think that's what's happening here.

 

[ihearthawthats]

I'd be okay with that. I think mobile games, in general, are detrimental to kids, because it teaches them to devalue art and entertainment, while also providing little developmental benefit, since most are basic, cheap time sinks.

Eh, again this assumes that all f2ps are bad. Btw, some people have this mentality for video games as a whole. I suppose I wouldn't be butthurt if it happened, but imo ideally it should be case by case, this is why we can't have nice things, etc, etc.

Well I tried... but let's try again:

[...]

I find the tone of this thread sensationalist compared to what is actually happening.

I'm aware, but I think the thread moved past what's happening to what should/could happen.

 

[Principate]

I hope you're right, but I really thinking you're giving the average person way too much credit.

Honestly that doesn't matter, people smoke, gamble despite all the various warnings. If despite being warned clearly about what a product does and you choose to ignore it's up to you.

What's more important is the uniformed, the people that don't know this happening and give their children these games with no idea.

If it's on a PC, wouldn't that require you having to go in your mom's purse and your dad's wallet and literally stealing their credit card info to plug it into the game? Is there any point where it's acceptable to teach your kids not to steal money from you?

I feel like once a kid has been taught that money doesn't grow on trees and understands it (which should be by like 3rd grade) you can't keep blaming others if your kid is stealing money from you. If it's a really young child like a 4 year old... again, maybe giving them unrestricted and unsupervised access to these things isn't the best parenting idea.

I don't see how not calling free games "free games" is going to stop a 4th grader from stealing from their parents or will stop a four year old from making purchases if you give them unrestricted and unsupervised access to a device.

It won't stop but it'll make parents more aware which the whole point of this exercise. What they choose to do with the information is up to them.

 

[Metallix87]

Eh, again this assumes that all f2ps are bad. Btw, some people have this mentality for video games as a whole. I suppose I wouldn't be butthurt if it happened, but imo ideally it should be case by case, this is why we can't have nice things, etc, etc.

I didn't specify f2p games. I said mobile games.

 

[jimi_dini]

All the name changes and labels are meaningless until parents wake up and realize what is going on.

Reminds me of the stupid huge ass age rating stickers in Germany.

This was also the result of "we have to do something".

 

[NaDannMaGoGo]

About time this gets changed. Currently it's simply a bit misleading. This does nothing but help consumer rights and I don't give a fuck if anyone thinks so highly of themselves that they want to argue that everyone who falls for these types of games currently deserves it because said person is supposedly and idiot.

If educating yourself helps prevent this stuff from happening AND there's additional customer protection on top of that, well I'm all for that.

I certainly won't feel bad for developers of f2p labeled games no longer making good profit from "idiots".

Ultimately, quality freemium games, or what you wanna call them now, will still be successful. Yeah, perhaps there may be an overall dip in customers when this stuff gets applied but.. so what. That's fine. They were previously lied to, so it's just fair that less people buy these games if it's more apparent that they're, in fact, not free to play.

Perhaps there should be made a distinction between completely optional cosmetic purchases which don't affect the gameplay whatsoever—like Dota 2—but that can come later.

 

[maximum360]

I had my almost 4 year old son playing some "Free2Play" games on my phone and caught him just before he accidentally purchased coins or whatever extras a few times. I decided it wasn't worth the risk and just started deleting games that had this option. Even if I purchased the game there is no setting in the options menu to block purchasing additional content [like if a kid plays the game that are designed for kids].

 

[Metallix87]

I had my almost 4 year old son playing some "Free2Play" games on my phone and caught him just before he accidentally purchased coins or whatever extras a few times. I decided it wasn't worth the risk and just started deleting games that had this option. Even if I purchased the game there is no setting in the options menu to block purchasing additional content [like if a kid plays the game that are designed for kids].

Don't give your son your phone. Buy him a GBA, a DS, or a 2DS and some used games.

 

[Monty Mole]

The 'free-to-play' moniker is misleading. It's no different to calling any game with a playable demo 'free-to-play'.

 

[Sushen]

Don't give your son your phone. Buy him a GBA, a DS, or a 2DS and some used games.

Blaming the victim is always a first step to take for some people. There is nothing wrong with asking companies to be accurate with their descriptions rather than trying to be shady. What harm does it give to the developers by having to describe what it is properly?

 

[v0rtikal]

this is definitely a step in the right direction.

 

[Kouriozan]

It's going to be called F2D or Free to Download anyway.

 

[Metallix87]

Blaming the victim is always a first step to take for some people. There is nothing wrong with asking companies to be accurate with their descriptions rather than trying to be shady. What harm does it give to the developers by having to describe what it is properly?

I'm not blaming the victim. The kid is innocent. I'm blaming the person being irresponsible with their credit card information.

 

[Dire]

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.

What you're saying is dangerous. I'm not trying to straw man you but your whole statement above can be accurately simplified to: "So long as consumers can figure out the truth with a bit of leg work, it should be okay to try to mislead them."

This action isn't an attack on "free to play" - just the deception involved in it. As somebody already mentioned a great benefit of this would be a clear segregation between "free to play" and actually legitimately free games, which is what I suspect the vast majority of consumers are looking for when they click "free" on the price filter. This would also really benefit developers who offer free games (or games with non-payment monetization methods) instead of having them get thrown into the ring with guys selling their "free" games for millions of dollars.

 

[Garcia]

I hope we get an update soon enough. It is reassuring to read some parts of the world keep actively fighting for the consumer.