Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

"Free-to-play" misleading advertising in Europe

gamesindustry.biz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 231 posts

Re: "Free-to-play" misleading advertising in Europe

#41

Post by baddox »

eropple wrote: post #33
x0054 wrote: post #11

The solution for this would be to change the purchase approval model where you have to enter your password to purchase anything. You can have to options: 1) authorize until closed, or 2) authorize just this purchase. This way kids could not run up charges using iAP. However, if you an adult, and you have purchased $100s of iAP, and now you feel bad about it, I have 0 sympathy for you. Overall, this is just EU being E…

> However, if you an adult, and you have purchased $100s of iAP, and now you feel bad about it, I have 0 sympathy for you. So you understand that companies like King design their "free" games to be next-to-impossible if you don't give them money, while employing teams of psychologists to determine the best way to subvert your will through forced failure while simultaneously driving manipulative CTAs at you while you…

How do you draw a line between deliberately designing a game to be enjoyable and have hooks in order to earn revenue, and "exploiting/subverting/forcing" them?

You seem to be making a distinction between people who pay money for "legitimate" enjoyment, and people who spend money for what they think is legitimate enjoyment but is actually just a trick. I'm not convinced this is a meaningful dichotomy, and I've never heard anyone even try to explain what the difference is. I'm not a big fan of strict normative statements about where I can or can't spend my money on entertainment.

Re: "Free-to-play" misleading advertising in Europe

#42

Post by jasonlotito »

mikhailt wrote: post #32
jasonlotito wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really want the government getting involved here? I mean, what's next? Attacking SaaS and PaaS for their "free" tiers that really don't provide you with much and you have to actually pay to actually get some real use out of it? Take some responsibility and stop asking the government to be your nanny.

WTF? Those SaaS/PaaS usually make clear what the plan cover and don't cover. If companies are intentionally gaming the system to mislead people with intent to profit from us, yes, I do want the government to get involved because nobody else will fix it. Apple's the curator and they're doing it, the app developers are doing it, so who do we have left to complain to? It's the government's responsibility to make sure co…

> WTF? Those SaaS/PaaS usually make clear what the plan cover and don't cover.

WTF? Those free games don't cost you a thing, too! And damn, if you don't want to pay, you don't have to. Apple tells you straight out if a game, free or otherwise, has IAP. They provide you with prices.

What more do you want?

> I do have a problem with companies saying those are free games where they aren't free and have paid requirements to keep playing the game.

So... your problem is that you don't enjoy some free games? You think if a game isn't good enough, it shouldn't be free? That's harsh.

Of all the first world problems to have, this really takes the cake.

Re: "Free-to-play" misleading advertising in Europe

#43

Post by baddox »

jkrems wrote: post #10
diziet wrote: post #9

This is silly. At the end of the day, game developers need to get paid for their effort and time spent. The days of $49 boxed games are over (on mobile). The iAP model is proven again and again across different platforms and the majority of the top grossing apps are following it. It costs money to develop games and apps. A quality title might cost over a million dollars in development. What makes the consumer believe…

I don't think anybody was saying that games should be free or that iAPs are about to be illegal. But labeling something "free" that isn't really "free" is misleading customers. Games shouldn't be free since games aren't free to produce. But it's a reasonable expectation that games that are not free are not labeled as "free".

How can you claim that this is a reasonable expectation, when the most popular and top grossing games on all platforms for several years have been dominated by so-called "free" games with in-app purchases? For someone to expect "free" to mean "no in-app purchases" would require complete ignorance on the state of electronic gaming, which is hardly reasonable.

Re: "Free-to-play" misleading advertising in Europe

#44

Post by ww520 »

nnutter wrote: post #14
diziet wrote: post #9

This is silly. At the end of the day, game developers need to get paid for their effort and time spent. The days of $49 boxed games are over (on mobile). The iAP model is proven again and again across different platforms and the majority of the top grossing apps are following it. It costs money to develop games and apps. A quality title might cost over a million dollars in development. What makes the consumer believe…

1. iAP are obviously not evil. 2. How the industry uses them probably is. 3. Your game isn't free if you have to pay to enjoy it. 4. "Developers gotta eat" doesn't have anything to do with it.

I have enjoyed many F2P games without paying, Candy Crush as a matter of fact. I just stop playing when it gets too tough to go on.

Re: "Free-to-play" misleading advertising in Europe

#45

Post by mikhailt »

jasonlotito wrote: post #37
twelvechairs wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same thing is common in other industries. You can't call your food pesticide-free or GM-free or gluten-free unless it really is. Is that a problem for you?

But outside of games just not being playable, people are talking about not having fun without the IAP. This is fairly subjective. I didn't spend a dime on Plant's vs. Zombies 2 despite it having IAP, yet somehow people suggest you "have" to spend money to have fun. No, the games are free. > You can't call your food pesticide-free or GM-free or gluten-free unless it really is. Yeah, not even the same thing.

> But outside of games just not being playable, people are talking about not having fun without the IAP. This is fairly subjective. I didn't spend a dime on Plant's vs. Zombies 2 despite it having IAP, yet somehow people suggest you "have" to spend money to have fun.

You didn't clarify that in your original post here. If I understood this is what you meant then I would've edited my post to remove the "fun" part but rather change it with "take full advantage of".

If Plaint and Zombies were advertised as a free game, you download it but it only lets you play 5 minutes before you have to pay, then that's not a free game. It's a free demo/trial.

> Yeah, not even the same thing.

Yes, it is in this point we're making. The people didn't make this happen, it required the intervention of the government to mandate this type of information accuracy.

Re: "Free-to-play" misleading advertising in Europe

#46

Post by jasonlotito »

microtonal wrote: post #28
jasonlotito wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really want the government getting involved here? I mean, what's next? Attacking SaaS and PaaS for their "free" tiers that really don't provide you with much and you have to actually pay to actually get some real use out of it? Take some responsibility and stop asking the government to be your nanny.

This is clearly a difference between the US and the EU. Most EU citizens (including me) think it is fine to regulate the market, e.g. if it is misleading. Such games are often misleading, since they are not really free. The 'Free' label is just used because people will impulse-install a free application more quickly than a paid application and in the end an addicted gamer will probably spend more through in-app purch…

Apple already does this. I am literally looking at a game right now in the App Store and it's free and Apple makes it very clear that it offers IAPs. It even gives you a list of the Top IAPs. So, listing every IAP, it does not do. But beyond that, it gives you exactly what is being asked.

Re: "Free-to-play" misleading advertising in Europe

#48

Post by djur »

jasonlotito wrote: post #39
djur wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of us, individually, are just single people. We don't have a lot of money. We don't have a lot of clout. Apple is very big. It has a lot of people, and a lot of money, and a lot of clout. Government is the countervailing force that, collectively, weak citizens can use to push back against private power. The word isn't "nanny", it's "guardian". It's "advocate".

Just to be clear, you want the government to protect you from games that are really, 100% free, but provide IAP for additional things that might enhance your enjoyment of the free game. Seriously, take some responsibility.

I didn't say anything about in-app purchases at all. I don't use mobile phone apps, so I don't know much about that market.

If products are being sold deceptively, there's a public interest in preventing that. Responsibility has nothing to do with it.

Re: "Free-to-play" misleading advertising in Europe

#49

Post by mikhailt »

jasonlotito wrote: post #42
mikhailt wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WTF? Those SaaS/PaaS usually make clear what the plan cover and don't cover. If companies are intentionally gaming the system to mislead people with intent to profit from us, yes, I do want the government to get involved because nobody else will fix it. Apple's the curator and they're doing it, the app developers are doing it, so who do we have left to complain to? It's the government's responsibility to make sure co…

> WTF? Those SaaS/PaaS usually make clear what the plan cover and don't cover. WTF? Those free games don't cost you a thing, too! And damn, if you don't want to pay, you don't have to. Apple tells you straight out if a game, free or otherwise, has IAP. They provide you with prices. What more do you want? > I do have a problem with companies saying those are free games where they aren't free and have paid requirements…

> ..damn, if you don't want to pay, you don't have to. Apple tells you straight out if a game, free or otherwise, has IAP. They provide you with prices.

If they're saying it's the free game of the week, people actually understood it to mean it's actually free. Several of my friends and family members got confused with this and actually thought the IAP was free as well.

> So... your problem is that you don't enjoy some free games? You think if a game isn't good enough, it shouldn't be free? That's harsh.

What does enjoyment have to do with anything? That wasn't the point, the point is the marketing, not the games itself. I don't have a problem with the games, I have a problem with the marketing saying they're free entirely.

Re: "Free-to-play" misleading advertising in Europe

#50

Post by jasonlotito »

mikhailt wrote: post #45
jasonlotito wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But outside of games just not being playable, people are talking about not having fun without the IAP. This is fairly subjective. I didn't spend a dime on Plant's vs. Zombies 2 despite it having IAP, yet somehow people suggest you "have" to spend money to have fun. No, the games are free. > You can't call your food pesticide-free or GM-free or gluten-free unless it really is. Yeah, not even the same thing.

> But outside of games just not being playable, people are talking about not having fun without the IAP. This is fairly subjective. I didn't spend a dime on Plant's vs. Zombies 2 despite it having IAP, yet somehow people suggest you "have" to spend money to have fun. You didn't clarify that in your original post here. If I understood this is what you meant then I would've edited my post to remove the "fun" part but r…

> "You didn't clarify that in your original post here."

What? That was literally in reply to your post which I replied to.

"Their free app of the week is often so-called free games but they almost always have in-app purchases that's required to actually enjoy the game."

You were talking about enjoyment from the beginning.

> Yes, it is in this point we're making

Not sure you know what point you are making.

Sorry, I'm done dealing with people who act like trolls.

Post reply on HN