Incline European Commission: Games with in-app purchases shouldn't be labeled "free"

[Blaine]

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-02-27-free-to-play-misleading-advertising-in-europe

But the real fun is in the comments:

 

[Humanity has risen!]

Ban this practice altogether, just like slot machines are banned. Both prey on innocent victims with grave issues, no matter how many cuddly cartoon characters you show up on screen.

 

[Abelian]

Maybe the name should be changed to "free to pay" since the players are free to pay for any upgrades

The way I see it, a free to play game can either be playable without needed to pay for upgrades/extra lives, in which case I don't need to pay, or it can only be realistically won/progressed if players spend money, in which case I don't want to play it in the first place.

There's a third option, where the players can pay for purely cosmetic upgrades, which still doesn't affect me.

That being said, I am against deceptive marketing practices such as these, so I think it shouldn't be as easy as clicking a single button to make a purchase (there are many cases of children paying hundreds/thousands on in-game rewards on their parents' tablet).

Edit: I just remembered that there already exists the term "freemium" for software that's free, but feature premium content accessible only to paying customers.

 

[Blaine]

Ban this practice altogether, just like slot machines are banned. Both prey on innocent victims with grave issues, no matter how many cuddly cartoon characters you show up on screen.

It's not just adults at issue, it's shit like this:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/107662-Eight-Year-Old-Girl-Blows-1400-on-Smurfberries

You don't even have to pull a credit card out if your info is stored. As hysterical as this may be, it's slimy as fuck.

 

[Dexter]

That's sweet. It was only a question of time and how far they will allow it to go before they come in with regulatory action.
There were already other countries that took some as I discussed previously:
Japan: http://www.serkantoto.com/2012/05/09/kompu-gacha-dena-gree-history/
South Korea: http://www.gamefront.com/virtual-item-sales-banned-in-south-korea/
UK: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-24272010

Not sure why you would be in favor of this kind of stuff seeing as your favorite game is turning into one of the most blatant examples for it.

 

[cvv]

Ban this practice altogether, just like slot machines are banned. Both prey on innocent victims with grave issues, no matter how many cuddly cartoon characters you show up on screen.

Addiction to fun, huh? Now if only we can find the demarcation line, let's see:

Ban slot machines and F2P but leave WoW?
Nope, no line here. So ban slot machines, F2P and WoW but leave offline games?
Nope. So ban slot machines, F2P, WoW and offline games but leave TV?
Nuh-uh. So ban slot machines, F2P, WoW, offline games and TV but leave bars&pubs?
Hardly. So ban slot machines, F2P, WoW, offline games, TV and bars&pubs but leave sports?
I don't see any clear line even here. So ban slot machines, F2P, WoW, offline games, TV, bars&pubs and sports and leave....what exactly?

Ban life?

 

[Commissar Draco]

Strawman argument its not about eliminating all vices but combating deceptive advertisement which is fraud and praying on people with deficiences. But Comrade cvv is so radical in his lolbertarianism that thinks that Police, Courts and Army should be market ''regulated''.
liberals

 

[cvv]

Strawman argument, its not about eliminating all vices but combating deceptive advertisement which is fraud

Strawman argument.
HHR wasn't about eliminating fraud but banning F2P wih in-app purchases altogether.

But Comrade cvv is so radical in his lolbertarianism that thinks that Police, Courts and Army should be market ''regulated''.

Correct.
I see my hard work in GD is bearing fruit.

 

[Abelian]

What distinguishes F2P from the rest of the examples is the premise that a player can have fun for free in order to lure them in, only to find that they are frustrated by players who pay for upgrades, so they feel compelled to buy as well. Then, they continue to buy more, due to the sunk cost fallacy.

The games' main source of revenue are "whales," players who make hundreds/thousands of dollars in impulse purchases. Here is a good article on the economics and psychology of F2P games.

 

[cvv]

What distinguishes F2P from the rest of the examples is the premise that a player can have fun for free in order to lure them in

I know what's the general point.

But what's the difference, in this particular principle, between F2P and say Diablo 3? I was lured into Diablo 3 on the implied promise that I pay 60 bucks and not a penny more. Instead I soon found out I was "feeling compelled" to shell out additional dough to buy some half decent sword. And then boots. And then armor. Et cetera. The point is I quit and uninstalled the damn game after a couple of purchases and never looked back, never complained. So what, do I have some special abilities that others don't?

The whole modern world is about all sorts of attractions and seductions and marketing legerdemain. Yes, outright fraud should be punished but ultimately, if you are a weak willed wimp, no law or regulation will protect you.

 

[Blaine]

So what, do I have some special abilities that others don't?

Yes, you have the ability to overlook all the other reasons to uninstall Diablo III and focus on the auction house.

I've trashed Diablo III before on the Codex, and probably will again when I'm bored someday. It's a bad example, though. In my experience, you could very easily purchase powerful gear from the AH (though this is a problem, not a benefit) for tiny amounts of game currency throughout the standard campaign, which you can easily acquire from pots and loot. I believe it's only when you reach the end of the highest difficulty that gear becomes insanely expensive and you might feel compelled to buy gold with $—from other players. Blizzard only takes a cut. I find it odd that you immediately felt compelled to spend real money.

Keep in mind that governments and the law tend to benefit corporations, entertainment providers, and trade organizations much more so than individuals. These entities have teams of lawyers available to inform them how to stretch the law to its absolute limit, lobbyists to sway politicians to serve their interests, etc. It's all well and good to be against nanny states (so am I) and "restriction of free enterprise" or whatever, but in my view, consumer protection is an important exception. Almost every person in the modern West is a profligate consumer of products, services, and entertainment, and profiteers do occasionally need their predatory proclivities kept in check.

Taken to an extreme, your position could be used to advocate for almost no consumer protections or misleading advertising restrictions at all. There's a fine line to walk.

 

[sea]

The problem is not free-to-play games or labeling them as such, the problem is misleading players into spending money by tapping into credit card data stored on the device and then offering vague messages about purchases. Tons of apps on smartphones and tablets purposely try to hide purchases and integrate them into normal behaviour so if you are not reading closely you end up buying something unwittingly.

There is a big difference between a free-to-play game with a cash shop and a free-to-play game that says "click here to revive!" without telling the player this costs money, or a game with gameplay-affecting purchases vs. one which has only cosmetic purchases like skins. In my opinion this commission does not really take that into account correctly or fairly.

 

[DragoFireheart]

Another reason to not touch free-to-play.

 

[Abelian]

It's all well and good to be against nanny states (so am I) and "restriction of free enterprise" or whatever, but in my view, consumer protection is an important exception. Almost every person in the modern West is a profligate consumer of products, services, and entertainment, and profiteers do occasionally need their predatory proclivities kept in check.

This. Even if a user has the ability to resist succumbing to in-game purchases, he/she needs to remember that the entire premise of these F2P games is to monetize its user base. They are in effect subsidized by players with less self-restraint. This is similar to how banks are able to provide free accounts using funds from people who are addicted to credit and constantly pay late fees or overdraft fees.

 

[Blaine]

In my opinion this commission does not really take that into account correctly or fairly.

That's a two-way street. The gaming industry has tolerated and in many cases even condoned these hard-to-pin-down methods of deceiving and/or fleecing customers. Now that people are complaining loudly enough for a large political entity to have taken notice, said political entity also finds it difficult to pin down the differences between what's acceptable and what's underhanded—just like Joe Blow consumer did. It's a classic two-edged sword, if you ask me. It's a murky situation and the lines are incredibly blurred.

When threatened with being forced to put a "this game is designed to ease you into parting with your hard-earned cash" label on their products (or at least disallowed from using labels that disguise that fact), suddenly now industry insiders are interested in "rights" and "fairness." Publishers of games featuring reasonable F2P schemes are no doubt caught up in it also, but that's really just too bad. Perhaps they should have showed more interest in self-regulation and/or transparency before the underhanded nonsense got out of control.

I gotta tell you, I'm personally NEVER opposed to forcing companies to label their products with honesty (up to and including total honesty), which is really all that's happening here.

 

[cvv]

So what, do I have some special abilities that others don't?

Yes, you have the ability to overlook all the other reasons to uninstall Diablo III and focus on the auction house.

True, although there was nothing "special" about it seeing how I shared it with millions of other dupes.

I find it odd that you immediately felt compelled to spend real money.

Not immediately, just after entering Inferno. IIRC from almost two years ago, hardcore players generally were able to plow through the first Inferno Act without RMAH (or so they claimed) but it was universally accepted that you can't survive further on without some serious purchases.

Keep in mind that governments and the law tend to benefit corporations, entertainment providers, and trade organizations much more so than individuals.

You don't descend down to GD much these days do you? :D
Believe you me, I keep that in mind so much I have hardly any space left for anything else.

These entities have teams of lawyers available to inform them how to stretch the law to its absolute limit, lobbyists to sway politicians to serve their interests, etc. It's all well and good to be against nanny states (so am I) and "restriction of free enterprise" or whatever, but in my view, consumer protection is an important exception.....Taken to an extreme, your position could be used to advocate for almost no consumer protections or misleading advertising restrictions at all. There's a fine line to walk.

It's very fine line, unfortunately it's getting crossed almost solely on the side of crookery.

Take the recent US law that made new tobaco products subject to FDA prior authorization, just like new drugs. It would sound as a proof the government cares about us...until you read it was pushed through by the Big Tobacco to entrench and protect their market share from their increasingly innovative smaller competitors, e-cig producers etc. Since then FDA effectivelly blocked out the whole tobbaco market because they're approving just a handful of new products (mostly from the Big Tobacco itself) out of thousands of applications each year.

And don't even get me started about the Chinese poisonous toys. What a wonderful opportunity for the politicos to show their concern and resolve. So they passed a new law stating that all new toys coming to US market must be pre-approved by a government laboratory or a private, government certified one. It sounds as a no brainer only the crazy lolbertarians could protest...until you find out that it was pushed through by Mattel because they knew it'd severely cripple the domestic mom&pop toy producers who couldn't afford the enormously expensive testing process. Oh and by the way, the only private, government certified testing laboratory happens to be run by Mattel.

If you'd look carefuly you'd find that consumer protection regulations may often begin as a well intentioned bill but they almost never actually get passed without lobbyists throw their weight and dough behind them, distorting them beyond recognition in the process ofc. This is the reason liberartarians have such a hard time to win a public argument. It's just so much easier to yell: "You are for poisoning our children!11!" than to explain the intricacies of actual lawmaking wheeling-dealing.

 

[cvv]

Another reason to not touch free-to-play.

Exactly. Reminds me - you know "shell game"? The trick game with the three cups and a small ball?

It was a huge fad here after the fall of communism, people were just flocking to the street stands, trying to win that fortune and getting fleeced by the hustlers in the process ofc. But lo and behold, in a year or two it was completely gone. But it wasn't no government consumer protection law that save the helpless dupes from themselves.

It disappeared simply because word got out the game is just a scam and people stopped playing it. And I believe it was largely because they didn't actually expect anyone to solve this for them. Back then they knew the government doesn't give a shit and that they have to take care of themselves. Today, they'd just scream for the government to step in and save them.

That is the biggest danger of the welfare/nanny state - it's undermining people's capacity to act responsibly, to look for protection to themselves first and the government second, not the other way around.

 

[Cowboy Moment]

Given how the business model of f2p mobile games works in terms of revenue sources (majority from a small amount of players), they deserve to be subject to the same regulation as casinos, for the same reasons.

Another reason to not touch free-to-play.

Exactly. Reminds me - you know "shell game"? The trick game with the three cups and a small ball?

It was a huge fad here after the fall of communism, people were just flocking to the street stands, trying to win that fortune and getting fleeced by the hustlers in the process ofc. But lo and behold, in a year or two it was completely gone. But it wasn't no government consumer protection law that save the helpless dupes from themselves.

It disappeared simply because word got out the game is just a scam and people stopped playing it. And I believe it was largely because they didn't actually expect anyone to solve this for them. Back then they knew the government doesn't give a shit and that they have to take care of themselves. Today, they'd just scream for the government to step in and save them.

That is the biggest danger of the welfare/nanny state - it's undermining people's capacity to act responsibly, to look for protection to themselves first and the government second, not the other way around.

See, even random, uncoordinated hustlers on the streets managed to fleece your country for two years. Now, imagine if they had the backing of a powerful organization with extensive resources (like a modern multinational corporation for example). Shit would be going on to this day in some form.

You wouldn't even have the information necessary to make an informed decision on what you want to buy if the "nanny state" hadn't forced companies to put the composition of their product on the box. Big businesses are already at a huge advantage in their tug-of-war against consumers, this kind of leglislation merely evens the odds, if that.

 

[Misconnected]

Given how the business model of f2p mobile games works in terms of revenue sources (majority from a small amount of players), they deserve to be subject to the same regulation as casinos, for the same reasons.

I can't say I'd object to simply eradicating F2P "games". The entire point of them is to ruin the lives of the few who're vulnerable to them. Casinos at least offer a social setting, and their survival isn't based on whales.

 

[cvv]

See, even random, uncoordinated hustlers on the streets managed to fleece your country for two years. Now, imagine if they had the backing of a powerful organization with extensive resources (like a modern multinational corporation for example). Shit would be going on to this day in some form.

I'll tell you what would've probably happened if a huge corporation muscled in on the shell gamer's business and then people demanded ban - after years of squabbles, negotiations behind closed doors and fact-finding trips to Bahamas for the involved lawmakers a law would've been passed ordering all shell gamers to get a government licence, an extremelly expensive one ofc.

Theories about how the government should work sound great in civic classes, but ^this is usually how things really work.

You wouldn't even have the information necessary to make an informed decision on what you want to buy if the "nanny state" hadn't forced companies to put the composition of their product on the box.

True, government was the one who sped up the progress in food safety. Do you think though that food labelling would've never sprang into existence without a state decree? That people wouldn't have started to demand it eventually?

Have you noticed how much processed, junk shit is lying around in the supermarkets? Where is the government banning that shit and mandating healthy, nutritious food?
Nowhere, that's where. There are corporations like the Whole Foods Market not because of a mandate from Washington, but because people grew more health conscious and started demanding healthier food.

You keep seeing people like dumb sheep that wouldn't know their own shit from a chocolate icecream without a wise and caring shepherd - the government. If you stop and think about how shit really works, do you think it's even remotely close?

 

[DragoFireheart]

Ironically it's the government that aggravated the situation in regards to proper nutrition.

6-11 servings of Bread/Cereal/Rice/Pasta? Great way to promote obesity!

You could probably cut out the entire bottom row and live a healthier life.

 

[Abelian]

True, government was the one who sped up the progress in food safety. Do you think though that food labelling would've never sprang into existence without a state decree? That people wouldn't have started to demand it eventually?

Actually, they did demand food quality regulation. One of the big catalysts in the early 20th century was Upton Sinclair's book The Jungle, which illustrated the unhygienic and dangerous working conditions in meatpacking plants. There was a huge public outcry and Teddy Roosevelt established the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to regulate the food industry.

Ironically, Upton Sinclair's main motivation was to highlight the dreadful living conditions of the workers rather than the food quality itself. He would later on say "I aimed at the public's heart, and by accident I hit it in the stomach."

 

[Cowboy Moment]

See, even random, uncoordinated hustlers on the streets managed to fleece your country for two years. Now, imagine if they had the backing of a powerful organization with extensive resources (like a modern multinational corporation for example). Shit would be going on to this day in some form.

I'll tell you what would've probably happened if a huge corporation muscled in on the shell gamer's business and then people demanded ban - after years of squabbles, negotiations behind closed doors and fact-finding trips to Bahamas for the involved lawmakers a law would've been passed ordering all shell gamers to get a government licence, an extremelly expensive one ofc.

Theories about how the government should work sound great in civic classes, but ^this is usually how things really work.

Thanks for letting me know how "things really work". Is there any newsletter I could subscribe to for more true facts about the shadowy realm of business - government interaction?

You wouldn't even have the information necessary to make an informed decision on what you want to buy if the "nanny state" hadn't forced companies to put the composition of their product on the box.

True, government was the one who sped up the progress in food safety. Do you think though that food labelling would've never sprang into existence without a state decree? That people wouldn't have started to demand it eventually?

Have you noticed how much processed, junk shit is lying around in the supermarkets? Where is the government banning that shit and mandating healthy, nutritious food?
Nowhere, that's where. There are corporations like the Whole Foods Market not because of a mandate from Washington, but because people grew more health conscious and started demanding healthier food.

You keep seeing people like dumb sheep that wouldn't know their own shit from a chocolate icecream without a wise and caring shepherd - the government. If you stop and think about how shit really works, do you think it's even remotely close?

This abstract "the people" bullshit is why nobody with half a brain is going to take you seriously. "People wouldn't have started to demand it" - like, who exactly? I'm certain a group of activists would have, but the population at large? Bro, the silent majority doesn't even participate in revolutions against oppressive regimes (as I'm sure you know, living in a post-Eastern Bloc country) until they're all but over and won, and you expect them to care about some text on a box of cereal they'll probably never read?

Not sure what the Whole Foods example is supposed to show. A relative niche gets a niche product, what a revelation.

 

[cvv]

and you expect them to care about some text on a box of cereal they'll probably never read?

Me?

I thought you do.

 

[Cowboy Moment]

and you expect them to care about some text on a box of cereal they'll probably never read?

Me?

I thought you do.

Np idea what gave you that idea. I said the information is there for people who want to make informed purchases, not that the majority actually makes informed purchases. Isn't it you who's arguing that people aren't dumb sheep? Or, well, that they're dumb sheep only because nanny states conditioned them to behave as such, which is very convenient, as it precludes any empirical evidence from applying.