"Free-to-play" misleading advertising in Europe • Hacker News Board

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

#121

Post by fnayr » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 9:44 AM UTC

People in this thread are ignoring where the true responsibility lies here, Apple (or Google).

As a dev I have no control whether to call my app "Free" or "Free to download but contains IAP that are required to use the whole game."

Apple has two categories, "Free" and "Paid" and places your app in the category automatically depending on whether the download price is nonzero.

So really, if you want to blame anyone, blame the app store creators, not the app creators.

(Of course there's still the ability to blame companies who market their apps as "FREE" in advertisements in other apps).

EDIT: And of course Apple has already added the label "Includes In App Purchases" to free games with IAP. I think that's good enough.

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

#122

Post by ithkuil » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 9:49 AM UTC

redthrowaway wrote: post #78

taspeotis wrote: post #8

When I look at free games on the App Store I see if it says "offers in-app purchases". If it does I look at the in-app purchases. If the in-app purchases are "x00 Special In-Game Currency Units" then I don't install the game. Not sure we need legislation to avoid being ripped off...

Unfortunately, most people aren't even that sophisticated. The average user isn't going to be able to differentiate between a free game and one designed to pry their wallets open. I don't know if the solution to that is regulation, but it can't be reliance on the uninformed to know what's good for them. The exploitative industry moves faster than any but the most well-informed and most jaded.

Indeed. There is always a point where everyone of us starts being not sophisticated.

Each time somebody tells me that we shouldn't protect stupid people, I remember not feeling very smart in front of pages of legalese in insurance and banking contracts. I keep thinking, yes they are probably going to screw me, but somebody is working to prevent them from screwing me too overtly.

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

#123

Post by Luc » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 10:00 AM UTC

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #69

ghshephard wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are Candy Crush and PvZ 2 Free? I've been playing them for 4+ months and haven't spent a dime on them. Other than the bandwidth to download them, I would certainly consider them free.

Apparently Candy Crush actually gets harder after you pay, because you've marked yourself as a sucker by paying once.

King has publicly stated this is not the case. If it were, that'd take a billion off their valuation.

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

#124

Post by timthorn » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 10:01 AM UTC

alkonaut wrote: post #120

I wholeheartedly agree with this. The point for me isn't so much "protection" against unforseen expenses it's just that I want to know up front what costs money and what doesn't. When I browse for a free app I don't want to see the crippled in-app-unlockable app next to the truly free app. Strict rules for prices in marketing is a prerequisite for a functioning market, my other pet peeve is the contract phone. Not on…

But the upfront cost is the entire cost of the phone to the customer, as in the customer has title to the phone immediately they pay that cost. You're implying that you only want contract phones to be sold on a hire-purchase basis, which has its own problems.

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

#125

Post by emiliobumachar » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 10:03 AM UTC

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.

>> You can't call your food pesticide-free or GM-free or gluten-free unless it really is.

> Yeah, not even the same thing.

Not the exact same thing, but not that different either. If I spray my fruits with pesticides that then get washed off in the rain, or stay in the crust which I remove before selling, I could reasonably argue that they are "pesticide-free". It's the government that forbids me to market them that way.

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

#126

Post by jay_kyburz » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 10:14 AM UTC

ig1 wrote: post #114

A lot of people are making false assumptions about what this is about; Here's the actual EU release rather than a blog rewrite: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-187_en.htm?locale... The actual issue is "Often consumers are not fully aware that they are spending money because their credit cards get charged by default." - so it's not an issue of people disliking paywalls in free games, it's an issue of people…

Thanks for going to the source for this one.

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

#127

Post by oneeyedpigeon » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 10:17 AM UTC

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."

Given that almost all of us arguing from either side would probably agree with this, there are two obvious options:

1. Allow the current situation, in which you can market anything as free, literally an app that does nothing without spending on IAP, so long as it is free to download

2. Prevent the use of the term 'free' if IAP is present at all.

In the interests of the consumer, to offer protection from unscrupulous companies which, particularly in this marketplace, have demonstrated some pretty unethical practises, I favour the latter.

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

#128

Post by timthorn » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 10:22 AM UTC

jasonlotito wrote: post #26

mikhailt wrote: post #4

This is one of the areas where I wish EU would punish Apple for. Their free app of the week is often so-called free games but they almost always have in-app purchases that's required to take full advantage of the game.

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.

SaaS & PaaS tend to be sold B2B - we have much stronger protections for consumer sales than for commercial.

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

#129

Post by timthorn » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 10:22 AM UTC

jasonlotito wrote: post #26

mikhailt wrote: post #4

This is one of the areas where I wish EU would punish Apple for. Their free app of the week is often so-called free games but they almost always have in-app purchases that's required to take full advantage of the game.

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.

SaaS & PaaS tend to be sold B2B - we have much stronger protections for consumer sales than for commercial.

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

#130

Post by nhaehnle » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 10:31 AM UTC

masklinn wrote: post #97

taspeotis wrote: post #8

When I look at free games on the App Store I see if it says "offers in-app purchases". If it does I look at the in-app purchases. If the in-app purchases are "x00 Special In-Game Currency Units" then I don't install the game. Not sure we need legislation to avoid being ripped off...

> If the in-app purchases are "x00 Special In-Game Currency Units" then I don't install the game. That's sensible to false-positives though, a number of games are perfectly playable (with no roadblock) without getting special currency units, e.g. jetpack joyride (a fairly standard infinite runner) or Solomon's Boneyard. The currency units are mostly there for developer support and if you can't be arsed to play the ga…

> ... sensible ...

You probably meant to write "sensitive" or "susceptible" or something like that. (Just a well-meaning remark especially if you, like me, are not a native speaker).