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

131–140 of 231 posts

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

#131

Post by paulhauggis »

ithkuil wrote: post #122
redthrowaway wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I guess I didn't realize the average person was that stupid. I play games with in-app purchases. It's pretty easy just not to pay for them.

If the public is this bad with something as simple as in-app purchases, why should we ever legalize drugs? This is a serious question.

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

#132

Post by nazgulnarsil »

timthorn wrote: post #124
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.

if it is illegal to modify the phone until the contract is over you don't have title to it.

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

#133

Post by rahimnathwani »

timthorn wrote: post #124
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.

the upfront cost is the entire cost of the phone to the customer

No, it's not. The up-front cost, plus the agreement to sign an x (x~=2) year contract is the cost to the consumer. The consumer would not have been induced to sign this contract without the advertised price of the phone so, clearly, the obligations in that contract are not ones that the consumer would be willing to undertake for free (i.e. without a subsidised phone).

the customer has title to the phone immediately they pay that cost

That may be the case, but let me share two examples:

1) If I get an iPhone from AT&T, at a subsidised price because I committed to a 2-year contract, that phone will be locked to AT&T until I request that it is unlocked. They will only unlock the phone if I have satisfied the conditions of the contract (i.e. paid my 24 months' bill). So, although I have title to the phone from day 1 (in the sense that I can throw it down the toilet if I want) I don't really own it in the sense of being able to do whatever I want with it (like use it on a different network) until 2 years' later. It doesn't seem that different from hire purchase.

2) If I buy an iPhone from China Unicom (the 2nd largest mobile provider in China), I pay a deposit up-front (roughly the unsubsidised price of the phone, less the advertised up-front price) and 1/24th of that deposit is credited to my bill each month for the next 2 years. The only practical differences vs. the AT&T example are (i) they don't lock the phone and (ii) they are more protected than AT&T are if I don't hold up my end of the bargain.

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

#134

Post by rahimnathwani »

tolmasky wrote: post #100
zik wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlike the US, the EU has strong legislation against deceptive advertising. Saying that a game is "free" when it's designed for profit is intentionally deceptive. It's really as simple as that.

Games with ads are free but designed for profit. Is that misleading too?

No, because they are still free (as in beer) at the point of delivery, like the NHS: http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/thenhs/about/Pages/nhscoreprinc...

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

#135

Post by michaelt »

timthorn wrote: post #124
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.

Here in the UK, when buying vehicle insurance I have the option to pay for the year upfront, or to pay monthly. Paying monthly costs more as you effectively get a loan for the upfront fee and pay off the loan over the course of a year. So the documents often present it like so:

Pay Upfront: £57.16

Pay Monthly: Deposit: £5.45 Installments: (11 x £5.45) Total: £65.40 APR: 35.3%

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

#136

Post by s_kilk »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #111
fnayr wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The player does not need to spend money for the majority of freemium games either.

'Need' is tricky to define in this case. Many 'freemium' games are very different experiences based on whether or not you pay via additional IAP. From what I gather, not having actually played it, Dungeon Keeper is about the most extreme example of this. It sounds like you really do need to pay in order to play the actual game , as opposed to playing something which many would describe as not really being the game .

Agreed, the recent Dungeon Keeper release was effectively unplayable without buying the IAP items.

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

#137

Post by ama729 »

jasonlotito wrote: post #46
microtonal wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Except Apple did it because they were forced to by a class-action lawsuit. I think that's a pretty good example of "regulation".

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

#138

Post by alkonaut »

timthorn wrote: post #124
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.

No, the cost of the phone is just spread out over 12 or 24 months. It's like saying a new car has the cost of a small down payment, it's completely absurd.

A contract phone is just a regular purchase with a payment plan over 24 months AND hopefully a rebate compared to buying the phone cash, since you are bound to the specific company for a period of time.

As an example, an iPhone might cost $1 when you sign a $50/mo contract for 24 months. If that contract would be $25 if I keeps my old phone, then the cost of the iPhone is 24 x $25.

The bottom line is: the total cost should be easy to calculate, specified on monthly bills (how much is phone payments vs. call costs), and obfuscating the phone payments by masking it as e.g more expensive pre-paid minutes must be outlawed as it makes it impossible to compare the contract to the equivalent contract without the phone.

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

#139

Post by ithkuil »

paulhauggis wrote: post #131
ithkuil wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I guess I didn't realize the average person was that stupid. I play games with in-app purchases. It's pretty easy just not to pay for them. If the public is this bad with something as simple as in-app purchases, why should we ever legalize drugs? This is a serious question.

It's not a requirement for a customer protection law to be protecting only the average citizen. Even if there is a minority of people affected but significantly the state feels entitled to act, rightfully or not. A good example is drug use/abuse.

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

#140

Post by matt_heimer »

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.

I do wish there was a distinction between the freemium app types. I'm okay with demoware (first level free, pay to unlock the rest) but I hate the buy coins every day model.

Maybe in-app purchase can be categorized as one-time or recurring?

Post reply on HN