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

171–180 of 231 posts

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

#171

Post by watwut »

PythonicAlpha wrote: post #5

Companies will find a different name ... and go on with the same business model. Just a naming game ... no real progress, yet. Clever companies will always find ways, to fool not so clever people. I also think, that most people know, that F2P is not really free.

I would argue it would be ok. There is nothing inherently wrong with apps requiring in app purchases to unlock content or pass paywall.

The point is not to label them as free, so the customers can rely on the usual meaning of the word free. And when the app is about to charge money, the customer should be clearly informed it is about to do so, even if he did not turned on "require password before purchase" option.

The problem is the deception, not the ability to buy things from inside the app.

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

#172

Post by joesb »

nnutter wrote: post #76
wyager wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like a parenting problem, not a legal problem.

It's not a parenting problem that a human brain develops over many years and is initially incapable of understanding some of the constraints the world places on it.

> initially incapable

So teach them? Isn't that what the parent post was saying?

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

#174

Post by randunel »

claudius wrote: post #116
dreamdu5t wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You are free not to use any of the services offered by society to you, which obviously requires leaving the country.

You are not free to leave the country, unless you are willing to spend your time in between borders. Many people are not as privileged as you are, for example I need a visa to go anywhere in the world. And the elections may seem like freedom, but usually you have to choose between multiple sides of the same evil :P

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

#175

Post by smsm42 »

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 .

Do you really want EU bureaucrats examining each game and deciding how playable it is with or without certain item? If the game is that bad - uninstall it, write one-star review for it and be done with it.

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

#176

Post by smsm42 »

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.

That depends on the question if you think it's OK for you to take the rights away from someone that you think are stupider than you. And if you think it's OK if someone who thinks they are smarter than you would take your rights away. If you think that'd be fine - then indeed there's no reason to legalize drugs, at least until people smarter than you decide there is. There's also no point of discussing it, since the decision lies with people smarter than you anyway.

But if you think people are smart enough to vote and to discuss public matters and to make right decisions for themselves - then there's no reason why decisions about what to eat and what to drink and what to inhale should be any different.

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

#177

Post by JoeAltmaier »

smsm42 wrote: post #176
paulhauggis wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That depends on the question if you think it's OK for you to take the rights away from someone that you think are stupider than you. And if you think it's OK if someone who thinks they are smarter than you would take your rights away. If you think that'd be fine - then indeed there's no reason to legalize drugs, at least until people smarter than you decide there is. There's also no point of discussing it, since the…

People are selfish all the time. They threaten others with guns, to get cash. They blackmail, and coerce, and cheat. Smart people too.

Now, don't know if selfish irresponsible use of intoxicants rises to that level, but the argument can be made. E.g. alcohol laws are everywhere, and its not even a very good intoxicant.

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

#178

Post by thaumasiotes »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #159
thaumasiotes wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not the first or last person to say this, but the solution to "some people behave in way X, while other people behave in way Y" is generally not "we need legislation compelling everyone to behave the same way".

No, but to draw an analogy that is actually vaguely close to what we're discussing, if some people behave in way X, which is not good for them, or for wider society, we need legislation allowing them to avoid behaving in way X. Yes, that example is exaggerated in the opposite direction from, but far less than, yours.

In the first place, the concept of "legislation allowing [people] to avoid behaving" in a certain way is incoherent. Say what you mean.

In the second place, the concept of "we need to prevent people from doing anything negative to themselves" is not distinguishable from the concept of "where there are multiple ways for people to behave, all but one must be prohibited". In fact, it's not even distinguishable from the concept of "where there are ways for people to behave, all must be prohibited".

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

#179

Post by ethangarofolo »

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.

Imagine the beauty of it! Before making an in-app purchase, you'd get to fill out as much paper work as you do for a mortgage. Disclosures, acknowledgement.

We could make Candy Crush as exciting as opening a bank account!

Post reply on HN