This used to be much easier when I was young. Freeware vs Shareware. Just searching for "freeware " would normally find me the truly free (as in beer) thing if there were multiple versions.
"Free-to-play" misleading advertising in Europe
141–150 of 231 posts
Re: "Free-to-play" misleading advertising in Europe
#142Earlier 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.
Well, for one thing the legal audience for these games includes children, whereas even for legalized drugs such as alcohol, I don't know of a country where children are a legitimate audience.
Re: "Free-to-play" misleading advertising in Europe
#143It 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.
Quoting "common position" document (whatever it is) http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/enforcement/docs/common_positi...
"The use of the word "free" (or similar) may be tolerated for games which are not entirely free, if it is complemented by appropriate qualifications characterising upfront in a clear manner what elements are for free and which ones can be purchased. In such cases, the consumer should be able to access discrete parts of the game that stand alone without the need to make purchases. "Free" may not be used where the consumer cannot, without making in-app purchases, access content integral to gameplay or play the game in a way that he/she would reasonably expect. "
Essentially, the customer must know what parts are free and which have to be paid for prior download. There is going to be grey zone of course, but if you app have paywall, it shall not be called free.
On the other hand, you can sell custom avatars or additional levels and call your app free, as long as the description says something like: playing first five levels of the game is for free, but custom avatars and additional content have to be paid for.
Re: "Free-to-play" misleading advertising in Europe
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
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%
You get that in the US too, however I wouldn't call it a loan because if you sign for a 1 year term and then cancel or switch providers after a month you get your money back
It's more like a SaaS offering you a discount for paying yearly
Re: "Free-to-play" misleading advertising in Europe
#145As a father, thank you. Games with in-app purchases are NOT free -- the reason of the intervention is that in a lot of cases, especially children, people were charged without noticing. These game should not be mingled with free games and parents should have an option to forbid them.
Can children have credit cards?
No, but there are pre-paid Apple Store credit vouchers you can buy pretty much everywhere.
Re: "Free-to-play" misleading advertising in Europe
#146There should be two different classifications for F2P games : Those who are pay to win, and others.
Re: "Free-to-play" misleading advertising in Europe
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except there are confusion when Apple markets it as the "Free Game of the Week". Many people thought this meant IAP was free as well. Say "Free game of the week with paid IAP still included", I don't have a problem with this.
Sorry, but it tells you the cost, right on the damn screen. It's not hidden. It literally tells you the price. This is well after you've already downloaded the free app. So you have the game. You are inside, and their are prices next to it. I mean, damn. Do these same people go to a club, get in for free, and then wonder why they still have to pay for drinks? > Say "Free game of the week with paid IAP still included"…
If it's "unlock extra maps for $5" I think that's fair.
If it's "125 tokens for $10", that's not really telling you the price. Video arcades used this abstraction tactic successfully. Make people convert money upfront, make the exchange rate difficult to calculate mentally, ensure that the user is left with worthless "change" so they top up again, to avoid being left with sunk costs.
If every time an IAP is offered it showed prices in real $/€, people would think twice.
Re: "Free-to-play" misleading advertising in Europe
#148Seems kind of ridiculous to me. "Consumers and in particular children need better protection against unexpected costs from in-app purchases." What are unexpected costs? Are users ever charged without explicitly agreeing to it? "The use of the word 'free' (or similar unequivocal terms) as such, and without any appropriate qualifications, should only be allowed for games which are indeed free in their entirety, or in o…
The unexpected costs would be tied to game elements (like higher levels) that required IAP. If this wasn't made clear when the app was downloaded, it would be a deceptive means of marketing a paid app as free.
Re: "Free-to-play" misleading advertising in Europe
#149It'd be interesting if they required games with IAPs to show an "average spend/user" number next to the big "FREE" label, so you know how much you can expect you'll get suckered in. Although I suspect it would be pretty meaningless since users would be split between "doesn't pay a cent" and "whales who spend lots".
Re: "Free-to-play" misleading advertising in Europe
#150When 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 think this is a matter for regulation because unlike a regulation deciding what you can and can't do, this is a regulation of advertising your product. App developers, myself included, have a responsibility of being honest to customers about what they are getting. Currently many freemium app descriptions tout the "free" and intentionally divert buyers attention from the fact that they have to pay later. Payment advertising is sometimes completely ignored and players feel that they are buying as a form of game play rather than as a buying transaction tied to real money.