Live data from Hacker News

"Free-to-play" misleading advertising in Europe

gamesindustry.biz

81–90 of 231 posts

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

#81

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…

> What more do you want?

People want clarity of information.

You keep saying that the price is listed. But IAPs are hidden behind an extra click. This might seem trivial to you but it is the kind of thing that the EU regulates and most citizens are pleased they do so.

Take another example. In the UK if you're a business marketing to the public and you advertise goods you must include the VAT in the advertised price. The end user almost always has to pay the VAT so it's nonsensical to advertise a product to the public without it.

Today Apple has a featured game which they call free. You click it to get to the game page and it is listed at free+. You scroll down and click IAPs and see that they offer an IAP for £34.99 - that's $58

Apple scoops up a lot of the IAP money and so it is in their interest to push games with IAPs, and it is dishonest of them to push games as free if those games are not truly free.

It is this dishonest advertising model that has driven app prices to such a low point. Someone honestly advertising a game at £5 is going to struggle to make any money.

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

#82
post #70
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And like I implied in my last comment, a lot more of what Apple does relies on the consent of its stakeholders than what governments do. There's a tragic irony in the fact that government routinely uses supposed consent to justify violence, while Apple (as far as I know, although shady stuff might happen from time to time) actually obtains consent from its stakeholders. Apple doesn't have to go around telling everyon…

The nation I'm a citizen of has a government that renews the consent of the government on a regular basis with free, fair, universal elections. I'm sorry if you don't live in such a country. The guillotine is a traditional remedy for that. Apple doesn't have to do that because we don't rely on it to safeguard our life, liberty, and property. If it disappeared tomorrow the economy would take a hit but life would go on…

Elections aren't an election of anyone's consent to be governed.

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

#83
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how unless you have some third party reviewing each game.

Valve seems like an obvious choice on PC. It'll be interesting to see what their console push leads to.

How is valve the obvious choice? They are making games, and they are also making games that sell things in the game.

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

#84

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.

> Yeah, not even the same thing.

That's not a helpful response. If you want to disagree - why is this different?

It makes sense to me for 'free' to mean 'free forever'. You could call it 'free to download' or whatever. Its basically false or misleading advertising to call something 'free' which you could end up paying for...

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

#85
Requiring explicit authorization would be really nice. I recently discovered that even if you set Google Play to always require a password (which apparently isn't even necessarily the default(?)), you still don't require a password for 30 minutes after any purchase. That means that if I buy a game for my son to play with, any in-game purchases he randomly clicks on automatically get approved.

Fortunately I get them refunded when I complain, but it's still a stupid policy.

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

#86

It would be interesting if one could differentiate between playable games, and in game purchases are "fun", versus games that are unplayable in the 'free' mode without purchasing additional tokens. Its the latter that people really hate.

It often depends on your skill level, whether you take breaks from the game, and how much of a completionist you are. In some games these factors interact in complicated ways.

From a regulatory perspective, I'm afraid the best we can do is:

* Ban tying game mechanics to time outside the game, whether it's "wait 8 hours unless you pay" or "this reward is only available for 4 hours" or an insidious combination of the two.

* Increase transparency, e.g. by asking app stores to show graphs of (time played) vs (money spent).

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

#87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was 4, I threw a tantrum in the middle of a mall because my mom wouldn't buy me a toy. In exasperation, she sat down at a bench and let me embarrass myself for a half hour. Kid's gotta learn eventually he can't get his way by being a brat, eh?

Everybody who doesn't have children, read the parent post! Most children will go through a phase where they throw tantrums. Different children have different needs, but for some you just have to let them kick and sream themselves to the realization that it doesn't get them anywere. So while it might be unfortunate that this interrupts your afternoon shopping, it is no reason to walk over to the parent an lecture them…

And shaming that parent into giving in to their child's unreasonable demands just ensures that the child will throw more tantrums in the future. And they work because bystanders will shame the parent into giving in. Don't be that person; support the parent.

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

#88
post #43
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is about transparency of pricing and being able to compare the actual cost of games.

Apple has featured a game today that they have listed as free. The largest IAP is $55, but that price is hidden behind extra clicks. This means that when a consumer is comparing two apps they have extra work to do to compare true prices.

This hidden pricing has cause harm.

Developers cannot advertise a game with an honest price. An app sold at £5.99 would struggle in todays app store. So devs have to list games as free but with IAPs.

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

#89
post #79

Some of these are reasonable protections, but I wonder if there's that many offenders -- are there really apps that don't follow "in-app purchases should not be made without the consumer's explicit consent?" I don't have an iPhone, but in Android you have to go through a Google Play dialogue to authorize any IAPs I've made. Some, though, seem rather ineffectual. If the App Store and Google Play replace the button tha…

>Some, though, seem rather ineffectual. If the App Store and Google Play replace the button that says "Free" with one that says something else, and the game still doesn't cost anything up-front, is that really going to change anyone's behavior?

Yes. Customer psychology is a fascinating thing. Even changing $100 to $99.9 generates more sales. And there are tons of examples like that (from the importance of colors to the important of shelf placement on supermarket). Wording is important.

I think it's not about in-app purchases being made without consent. The real issue is that a game with in-app purchases is not a "free" game exactly, it's like what we used to call shareware or light version. It's a different experience than with totally free games.

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

#90
post #18

Personally I would like to see iAP to be considered like advertising and for it to be more heavily regulated at child audiences. Tired of my 4 year old crying because I won't let him spend another $4 to unlock another widget.

When I was 4, I threw a tantrum in the middle of a mall because my mom wouldn't buy me a toy. In exasperation, she sat down at a bench and let me embarrass myself for a half hour. Kid's gotta learn eventually he can't get his way by being a brat, eh?

>can't get his way by being a brat, eh?

As you know, everyone's opinion on child rearing is the one true way.

We know that some parenting techniques encourage children to play helpless or enraged if it consistently achieves goals they want. We also know that certain types of treatment make them less likely to whine, or cry when hurt.

When Fred Rodgers talks to a little boy and asks him about what makes him really mad inside, is he encouraging temper tantrums, or is he standing in contrast to the spectrum of a boozy mummy and daddy on one side who don't want disruption and a short tempered, beaten down set of parents on the other?

If you live in a highly structured, hierarchical society with a strong patronage system, your children are probably going to live better lives if you breed a strong sense of deference to authority. If that isn't the case, being kind of mousy might find them mousy lives.

Whining may be really unpleasant for any adult in the vicinity, yet unjustified whining from a 4 year old is not the same as unjustified whining from a 25 year old. If it's unjustified the 25 year old is choosing to be a victim. On the other hand, the 4 year old does not have the rational or emotional capacity to judge what is or is not the end of the world. You can train the 4 year old to no longer whine, by focusing on the whining and making that a singular, traumatic event. And yet, what you probably want, is for your child to fight back on things that actually matter, and also to use more effective means than pathetic whining.

--Ineffective, bad argumentation techniques used on embarrassingly unimportant topics-- And yet, a four year old is unlikely to see that as the banner. Instead, they are likely to see, mommy or daddy goes nuclear if I insist "I must have".

You remembered the incident clear enough to make the connection that it was a a dumb issue that your toddler self were pushing, but another toddler would have just interpreted it as a statement about who was in charge, or for it to be wrong to feel strongly. In the grown up world, how often do people unjustifiably feel that it is presumptuous to ask for a raise. Or, how much innovation has been hindered by people bowing their head when their boss ignores their idea, rather than going out on their own and putting their former employer out of business.

Anyway, back to the original topic, programs with in-app purchases are intended to get money, and some are sophisticated enough to manipulate adults into spending more than they otherwise would. There are a few options here. You can have a teachable moment: don't ask mommy and daddy for things. Or the teachable moment: . Or finally, a short time with a game , then later some fun finger painting.

Since, sadly, the presence of some childish behaviors that are unpleasant to adults are better than their absence, an absence of triggers can be nice. You can know how to scare your child from whining, decide not to, but also hold the combination of beliefs that you don't want to spoil them and you don't want to hear whining on this particular car trip. You know that just buying whatever is not a viable choice, but it would be nice if such teachable moments only occurred in the grocery checkout line rather than also in the car.

Post reply on HN