4 ms·

> Such games are “cheap trash” in the same sense as a vegas casino. Similarly the actual operating of them at scale becomes very sophisticated. And finally, th

by benoau 2y ago

> Such games are “cheap trash” in the same sense as a vegas casino. Similarly the actual operating of them at scale becomes very sophisticated. And finally, there's an initiative to outlaw many of the tactics that make it work so well! https://www.beuc.eu/reports/game-over-consumers-fight-fairer-game-purchases https://www.beuc.eu/reports/game-over-consumers-fight-fairer...

johnnyanmac 2y ago
funnily enough, these factors affects mobile games the least: - Gamers cannot see the real cost of digital items, leading to overspending. mobile games do have some confusing tactics like using odd currency amounts (say, 180 in game currency instead of 200 to pull a character), but changing that won't really kill any game. - Companies’ claims that gamers prefer in-game premium currencies are wrong. for premium games with MTX this makes sense. For a f2p mobile game there is no preference. - Consumers are often denied their rights when using premium in-game currencies. mobile games tends to be pretty good at dealing with this. Mobile had huge charge-back rates, be it through Google/Apple or CC companies (and probably still do), so it's financially wiser to just help out complaining customers who aren't objectively in the wrong. the digital currency is basically worthless anyway. - Children are vulnerable to these manipulative tactics. A classic argument. I don't know how this one will result, but I have seen more and more games launch as 16/17+ rather than 12+ (I dont know if these stores even allow 18+. But I'm sure they would if it means they keep their lootboxes). A few even retroactively increase their age rating. But those are for reasons beyond the scope of children fears. It's a good step to make console games choose between f2p or premium, but I don't think this (in its current iteration) will clamp down much on the mobile market.
- benoau 2y ago
  > It's a good step to make console games choose between f2p or premium, but I don't think this (in its current iteration) will clamp down much on the mobile market. The fact that Roblox and Clash of Clans are cited as examples suggests this will absolutely impact Apple, if there is validity to the claims, because they are and have been the biggest beneficiary of such tactics for more than a decade. A decade ago they were forced to create parental controls after it was found kids were spending money like crazy in games designed to let kids spend unlimited amounts of money, and today 10x more is spent in those kids games...
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    Roblox is definitely a unique case due to its marketing, yes. And it's been under fire for a while now. I do wonder how much impact that could have if it was forced to lose much of the audience assossiated with it. For stuff like Clash of Clans, I'm less sure. The impact wouldn't be zero, but I'm expecting it more on the scale of making 100m a month to 90m a month. You'll feel it but it won't really make devs change course.

by benoau 2y ago

johnnyanmac 2y ago

funnily enough, these factors affects mobile games the least: - Gamers cannot see the real cost of digital items, leading to overspending. mobile games do have some confusing tactics like using odd currency amounts (say, 180 in game currency instead of 200 to pull a character), but changing that won't really kill any game. - Companies’ claims that gamers prefer in-game premium currencies are wrong. for premium games with MTX this makes sense. For a f2p mobile game there is no preference. - Consumers are often denied their rights when using premium in-game currencies. mobile games tends to be pretty good at dealing with this. Mobile had huge charge-back rates, be it through Google/Apple or CC companies (and probably still do), so it's financially wiser to just help out complaining customers who aren't objectively in the wrong. the digital currency is basically worthless anyway. - Children are vulnerable to these manipulative tactics. A classic argument. I don't know how this one will result, but I have seen more and more games launch as 16/17+ rather than 12+ (I dont know if these stores even allow 18+. But I'm sure they would if it means they keep their lootboxes). A few even retroactively increase their age rating. But those are for reasons beyond the scope of children fears. It's a good step to make console games choose between f2p or premium, but I don't think this (in its current iteration) will clamp down much on the mobile market.

benoau 2y ago
> It's a good step to make console games choose between f2p or premium, but I don't think this (in its current iteration) will clamp down much on the mobile market. The fact that Roblox and Clash of Clans are cited as examples suggests this will absolutely impact Apple, if there is validity to the claims, because they are and have been the biggest beneficiary of such tactics for more than a decade. A decade ago they were forced to create parental controls after it was found kids were spending money like crazy in games designed to let kids spend unlimited amounts of money, and today 10x more is spent in those kids games...
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  Roblox is definitely a unique case due to its marketing, yes. And it's been under fire for a while now. I do wonder how much impact that could have if it was forced to lose much of the audience assossiated with it. For stuff like Clash of Clans, I'm less sure. The impact wouldn't be zero, but I'm expecting it more on the scale of making 100m a month to 90m a month. You'll feel it but it won't really make devs change course.