13 ms·

"Free-to-play" misleading advertising in Europe

410 points by bhaumik 13y ago

vsviridov 13y ago
That's a move in the right direction... All the nickel-and-diming is hurting the games and the industry in the long run...
wudf 13y ago
Awesome. These free-to-pay apps compromise the artistic implication the word "game" deserves.
mikhailt 13y ago
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.
- jasonlotito 13y ago
  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.
  - taspeotis 13y ago
    > stop asking the government to be your nanny. But then who will protect my children from things I disagree with???
    - Tohhou 13y ago
      If you have no power, no personal agency, and are a perpetual victim, then, really, the state is your best friend in divorcing yourself wholesale of personal accountability. Ban allowing people to give free samples. They only make people believe that they can get more of what they want for free. Who are they to arbitrarily define how much a "sample" is when they use the word free? It's all or nothing, folks, stop trying to con the rest of us! Ban allowing people to do charity work. If people don't want to become my personal slave, then they shouldn't have offered to open the door for me. Super simple stuff.
  - danieldk 13y ago
    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 purchases. I think there is a good middle ground that can be found. Instead of listing in-app purchases separately, Apple, Google, et al. could make three options: - <Price> - Free - Free with in app-purchases It would also be nice if every app store listed all the in-app purchases. Then I, as a customer, can consider beforehand whether I found the prices to be acceptable.
    - jasonlotito 13y ago
      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.
      - mikhailt 13y ago
        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.
        jasonlotito 13y ago
        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", I don't have a problem with this. I guarantee that using that wording, people would think that the paid IAP was included with the "Free game of the week." I mean, they are already dumb enough to see a price and ignore it.
  - twelvechairs 13y ago
    The same thing is common in other industries. You can't call your food pesticide-free or GM-free or gluten-free unless it really is. Is that a problem for you?
    - jasonlotito 13y ago
      But outside of games just not being playable, people are talking about not having fun without the IAP. This is fairly subjective. I didn't spend a dime on Plant's vs. Zombies 2 despite it having IAP, yet somehow people suggest you "have" to spend money to have fun. No, the games are free. > You can't call your food pesticide-free or GM-free or gluten-free unless it really is. Yeah, not even the same thing.
      - mikhailt 13y ago
        > But outside of games just not being playable, people are talking about not having fun without the IAP. This is fairly subjective. I didn't spend a dime on Plant's vs. Zombies 2 despite it having IAP, yet somehow people suggest you "have" to spend money to have fun. You didn't clarify that in your original post here. If I understood this is what you meant then I would've edited my post to remove the "fun" part but rather change it with "take full advantage of". If Plaint and Zombies were advertised as a free game, you download it but it only lets you play 5 minutes before you have to pay, then that's not a free game. It's a free demo/trial. > Yeah, not even the same thing. Yes, it is in this point we're making. The people didn't make this happen, it required the intervention of the government to mandate this type of information accuracy.
        jasonlotito 13y ago
        > "You didn't clarify that in your original post here." What? That was literally in reply to your post which I replied to. "Their free app of the week is often so-called free games but they almost always have in-app purchases that's required to actually enjoy the game." You were talking about enjoyment from the beginning. > Yes, it is in this point we're making Not sure you know what point you are making. Sorry, I'm done dealing with people who act like trolls.
  - mikhailt 13y ago
    WTF? Those SaaS/PaaS usually make clear what the plan cover and don't cover. If companies are intentionally gaming the system to mislead people with intent to profit from us, yes, I do want the government to get involved because nobody else will fix it. Apple's the curator and they're doing it, the app developers are doing it, so who do we have left to complain to? It's the government's responsibility to make sure companies follow the laws and not take advantage of people. I do not have a problem with IAP, I'm okay with companies trying to make money via that method. However, I do have a problem with companies saying those are free games where they aren't free and have paid requirements to keep playing the game.
    - jasonlotito 13y ago
      > WTF? Those SaaS/PaaS usually make clear what the plan cover and don't cover. WTF? Those free games don't cost you a thing, too! And damn, if you don't want to pay, you don't have to. Apple tells you straight out if a game, free or otherwise, has IAP. They provide you with prices. What more do you want? > I do have a problem with companies saying those are free games where they aren't free and have paid requirements to keep playing the game. So... your problem is that you don't enjoy some free games? You think if a game isn't good enough, it shouldn't be free? That's harsh. Of all the first world problems to have, this really takes the cake.
      - mikhailt 13y ago
        > ..damn, if you don't want to pay, you don't have to. Apple tells you straight out if a game, free or otherwise, has IAP. They provide you with prices. If they're saying it's the free game of the week, people actually understood it to mean it's actually free. Several of my friends and family members got confused with this and actually thought the IAP was free as well. > So... your problem is that you don't enjoy some free games? You think if a game isn't good enough, it shouldn't be free? That's harsh. What does enjoyment have to do with anything? That wasn't the point, the point is the marketing, not the games itself. I don't have a problem with the games, I have a problem with the marketing saying they're free entirely.
  - djur 13y ago
    All of us, individually, are just single people. We don't have a lot of money. We don't have a lot of clout. Apple is very big. It has a lot of people, and a lot of money, and a lot of clout. Government is the countervailing force that, collectively, weak citizens can use to push back against private power. The word isn't "nanny", it's "guardian". It's "advocate".
    - baddox 13y ago
      There's a lot of mental gymnastics going on in your comment. Both Apple and government are simply a bunch of individuals. The difference is which group contains individuals that will use violence against people to get its way regardless of the people's consent.
      - djur 13y ago
        The difference is which group derives its power from the consent of the governed, actually.
        baddox 13y ago
        And like I implied in my last comment, a lot more of what Apple does relies on the consent of its stakeholders than what governments do. There's a tragic irony in the fact that government routinely uses supposed consent to justify violence, while Apple (as far as I know, although shady stuff might happen from time to time) actually obtains consent from its stakeholders. Apple doesn't have to go around telling everyone "It's okay that we take your money in exchange for our products, because you actively consent to the exchange," because everyone knows that's how it works. And yet government, which plainly doesn't work that way, is the one that hammers into our heads the lie that the exchange is consensual. It would be laughable, except that so many people actually get fooled.
        djur 13y ago
        The nation I'm a citizen of has a government that renews the consent of the government on a regular basis with free, fair, universal elections. I'm sorry if you don't live in such a country. The guillotine is a traditional remedy for that. Apple doesn't have to do that because we don't rely on it to safeguard our life, liberty, and property. If it disappeared tomorrow the economy would take a hit but life would go on.
  - seunosewa 13y ago
    I wish Apple would self-regulate instead of waiting for the government to do this for them.
  - timthorn 13y ago
    SaaS & PaaS tend to be sold B2B - we have much stronger protections for consumer sales than for commercial.
  - timthorn 13y ago
    SaaS & PaaS tend to be sold B2B - we have much stronger protections for consumer sales than for commercial.
  - ethangarofolo 13y ago
    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!
- ghshephard 13y ago
  Are Candy Crush and PvZ 2 Free? I've been playing them for 4+ months and haven't spent a dime on them. Other than the bandwidth to download them, I would certainly consider them free.
  - ZeroGravitas 13y ago
    Apparently Candy Crush actually gets harder after you pay, because you've marked yourself as a sucker by paying once.
    - diziet 13y ago
      This is something that should be pretty simple to test. Do you have any more details?
      - pja 13y ago
        I believe that it's not so much that it specifically gets hard after you've paid (although that's a neat dark pattern that I wouldn't put past some of the current crop of App game developers frankly!) but rather that after a certain point it simply gets too hard to progress without paying. So the developers draw you in with what appears to be a skill game that you can enjoy playing, and then after they've got you committed they gradually turn it into a money game by making it progressively more and more unfair. I can't remember where the article is that I read about all this though.
        joesb 13y ago
        Except I have lots of friends who played to the last level of Candy Crush without buying any IAP. The game is not impossible to beat without IAP.
        Joeri 13y ago
        How many hours does it take to reach the last level? Doesn't that game have over 600 levels? At 10 minutes average per level we're talking about 100+ hours, which is several weeks of full-time occupation. If you have lots of friends who did that, we're talking about collectively months of FTE. If those had been paid hours, how much money would they have earned in that time? I'm not going anywhere with this, just wondering about the staggering amount of time that gets sucked into games like candy crush.
PythonicAlpha 13y ago
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.
- hayksaakian 13y ago
  well I'd rather force abusers into mental gymnastics than allow them to outright lie this could also highlight apps that are truley free
  - thesimpsons1022 13y ago
    especially for parents who only want their kids to play truly free games.
- Aardwolf 13y ago
  If it has a different name, at least it'll be distinguishable.
- monkeyspaw 13y ago
  What does f2p stand for? Although I'm cynical enough to not expect this, things could be partitioned into "grant access to people with no payment on file" and "need payment on file to download this app".
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - NortySpock 13y ago
    f2p: free-to-play -- normally with in-game purchases implied.
- watwut 13y ago
  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.
cheery 13y ago
I was wondering why it was allowed to call something "free" that clearly was not, long while ago. There is a clear established term for "f2p" -games: shareware.
taspeotis 13y ago
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...
- rytis 13y ago
  I think it'd be a good thing to do. You have a process in place, and enough self discipline to avoid installing such apps. But not everyone is like that. I'm guessing majority of the users go like this: "ah, it's a free app, great, I'll get it. <10 mins in the game, when they run out of gems, bullets, whatnot> Oh, what do I do now? £0.99 is not too bad, I'll just get another pack of <blah>, so I don't have to wait 30 mins". Can people self-regulate and avoid behaving like that? Yes. Do they? I doubt it.
  - thaumasiotes 13y ago
    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".
    - oneeyedpigeon 13y ago
      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.
      - thaumasiotes 13y ago
        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".
diziet 13y ago
This is silly. At the end of the day, game developers need to get paid for their effort and time spent. The days of $49 boxed games are over (on mobile). The iAP model is proven again and again across different platforms and the majority of the top grossing apps are following it. It costs money to develop games and apps. A quality title might cost over a million dollars in development. What makes the consumer believe they deserve to get it for free? iAPs are not necessarily evil - they are a great and perfect way of pricing things for different subsets of people. If you reduce iAP revenue, you make developers more driven toward ad revenue.
- jkrems 13y ago
  I don't think anybody was saying that games should be free or that iAPs are about to be illegal. But labeling something "free" that isn't really "free" is misleading customers. Games shouldn't be free since games aren't free to produce. But it's a reasonable expectation that games that are not free are not labeled as "free".
  - diziet 13y ago
    Are apps without iAPs but with ads to be considered 'free'?
    - trentmb 13y ago
      Sure. The experience is the same for all users. Paying money doesn't change it.
    - bookwormAT 13y ago
      I personally don't consider them free. But I think most people do.
    - jkrems 13y ago
      "Free" as opposed to "paid" refers to one specific resource (money) being paid by the user to the developer. So yes, they are free in that regard. Otherwise you could start to argue that loading screens make an app non-free because they cost you time.
x0054 13y ago
The solution for this would be to change the purchase approval model where you have to enter your password to purchase anything. You can have to options: 1) authorize until closed, or 2) authorize just this purchase. This way kids could not run up charges using iAP. However, if you an adult, and you have purchased $100s of iAP, and now you feel bad about it, I have 0 sympathy for you. Overall, this is just EU being EU, nothing surprising.
- eropple 13y ago
  > However, if you an adult, and you have purchased $100s of iAP, and now you feel bad about it, I have 0 sympathy for you. So you understand that companies like King design their "free" games to be next-to-impossible if you don't give them money, while employing teams of psychologists to determine the best way to subvert your will through forced failure while simultaneously driving manipulative CTAs at you while you are at your (carefully cultivated) most vulnerable? And, understanding that and with that first and foremost in your mind, you have no sympathy for the people who end up on the business end of that psychological weapon? Because I certainly do. There are economies of scale to the practice of subverting people's will and in this war one side's got all the guns. These games are designed--designed--to hit the same triggers as a fucking gambling addiction, man. I am so very not OK with abandoning those wired less effectively against it. (And as I get older I can see how insidious and easy it is for this shit to worm into me when I never would have noticed it, or thought it possible, a decade ago.)
  - baddox 13y ago
    How do you draw a line between deliberately designing a game to be enjoyable and have hooks in order to earn revenue, and "exploiting/subverting/forcing" them? You seem to be making a distinction between people who pay money for "legitimate" enjoyment, and people who spend money for what they think is legitimate enjoyment but is actually just a trick. I'm not convinced this is a meaningful dichotomy, and I've never heard anyone even try to explain what the difference is. I'm not a big fan of strict normative statements about where I can or can't spend my money on entertainment.
  - r00fus 13y ago
nnutter 13y ago
I more strongly object to "Buying" DRM'd content that I don't actually own. It should say "License" or something.
- officer_gotcha 13y ago
  I have rarely seen any content that is "sold". Even if you look at your drm-free vinyl record, it tends to say that you're sold the plastic, but the content is only licensed to you for the lifetime of the medium and that you're prohibited from making copies, publicly broadcasting it and whatnot. It isn't the DRM that's restricting you, it's the copyright law.
nnutter 13y ago
Personally I would like to see iAP to be considered like advertising and for it to be more heavily regulated at child audiences. Tired of my 4 year old crying because I won't let him spend another $4 to unlock another widget.
- CatMtKing 13y ago
  When I was 4, I threw a tantrum in the middle of a mall because my mom wouldn't buy me a toy. In exasperation, she sat down at a bench and let me embarrass myself for a half hour. Kid's gotta learn eventually he can't get his way by being a brat, eh?
  - sentenza 13y ago
    Everybody who doesn't have children, read the parent post! Most children will go through a phase where they throw tantrums. Different children have different needs, but for some you just have to let them kick and sream themselves to the realization that it doesn't get them anywere. So while it might be unfortunate that this interrupts your afternoon shopping, it is no reason to walk over to the parent an lecture them on what they should or shouldn't do, or better yet, tell them they should be ashamed of themselves! It's not like the parent is having fun or being even remotely not uncomfortable while it happens.
    - mcv 13y ago
      And shaming that parent into giving in to their child's unreasonable demands just ensures that the child will throw more tantrums in the future. And they work because bystanders will shame the parent into giving in. Don't be that person; support the parent.
      - vidarh 13y ago
        And that includes not giving eye contact, encouraging smiles or otherwise engaging with the child. But the problem of course is that for many bystanders it is hard to tell when a child is being a brat, and when a child is being mistreated. Especially if they're not a parent themselves.
smprk 13y ago
Hm. I see the good intent of protection against 'unwitting purchases' BUT still do not welcome the government intervention here. Governments have a tendency to work on 'soft targets' like software / app development. I would like to see them work first on unwitting charges/terms-and-conditions imposed by credit card or insurance companies. The order of priority just feels wrong.
whiddershins 13y ago
What about advertising? It consumes my time and attention, which is generally worth more (at least to me) than a few bucks. And advertising can have a powerful affect on susceptible minds. By this logic, all advertisement-supported games should be clearly marked as well.
- baddox 13y ago
  And what about people who release free software with no in-app purchases or advertising, who simply want to learn programming or get enjoyment from having people use their software? These people are exploiting their users for personal gain too!
- ZeroGravitas 13y ago
  I don't mind "advertising" per se, e.g there's lego apps for kids that, like Saturday morning cartoons, could be viewed basically as advertisements, but are reasonable experiences in themselves. On the other hand the apps that throw up full screen ads with tiny, hidden close buttons are annoying. Mostly they seem designed to provoke accidental clicks, which don't seem to offer any social value at all. (Also, no one seems to note that fake free apps are undermining honest for pay apps, a model which people here seem to support).
mikhailt 13y ago
Maybe instead of calling them free, use Freemium instead?
ForFreedom 13y ago
Such games should not be classified as free..
ChuckMcM 13y ago
It 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.
- JAFTEM 13y ago
  I don't see how unless you have some third party reviewing each game.
  - redthrowaway 13y ago
    Valve seems like an obvious choice on PC. It'll be interesting to see what their console push leads to.
    - yxhuvud 13y ago
      How is valve the obvious choice? They are making games, and they are also making games that sell things in the game.
- jruderman 13y ago
  It often depends on your skill level, whether you take breaks from the game, and how much of a completionist you are. In some games these factors interact in complicated ways. From a regulatory perspective, I'm afraid the best we can do is: * Ban tying game mechanics to time outside the game, whether it's "wait 8 hours unless you pay" or "this reward is only available for 4 hours" or an insidious combination of the two. * Increase transparency, e.g. by asking app stores to show graphs of (time played) vs (money spent).
- watwut 13y ago
  Quoting "common position" document (whatever it is) http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/enforcement/docs/common_position_on_online_games_en.pdf 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.
cwyers 13y ago
Some of these are reasonable protections, but I wonder if there's that many offenders -- are there really apps that don't follow "in-app purchases should not be made without the consumer's explicit consent?" I don't have an iPhone, but in Android you have to go through a Google Play dialogue to authorize any IAPs I've made. Some, though, seem rather ineffectual. If the App Store and Google Play replace the button that says "Free" with one that says something else, and the game still doesn't cost anything up-front, is that really going to change anyone's behavior?
- coldtea 13y ago
  >Some, though, seem rather ineffectual. If the App Store and Google Play replace the button that says "Free" with one that says something else, and the game still doesn't cost anything up-front, is that really going to change anyone's behavior? Yes. Customer psychology is a fascinating thing. Even changing $100 to $99.9 generates more sales. And there are tons of examples like that (from the importance of colors to the important of shelf placement on supermarket). Wording is important. I think it's not about in-app purchases being made without consent. The real issue is that a game with in-app purchases is not a "free" game exactly, it's like what we used to call shareware or light version. It's a different experience than with totally free games.
mcv 13y ago
Requiring explicit authorization would be really nice. I recently discovered that even if you set Google Play to always require a password (which apparently isn't even necessarily the default(?)), you still don't require a password for 30 minutes after any purchase. That means that if I buy a game for my son to play with, any in-game purchases he randomly clicks on automatically get approved. Fortunately I get them refunded when I complain, but it's still a stupid policy.
ericdykstra 13y ago
Seems 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 other words which contain no possibility of making in-app purchases, not even on an optional basis." What is the cost of someone downloading a 'free' game only to realize that they need to pay to get the experience that they expected? They can just uninstall the game. I've paid for and downloaded games that didn't deliver the experience I expected. If the goal is protecting kids from making in-app purchases, maybe parents should learn how to use parental controls, or not attach credit cards to their children's devices. Does this really 'protect' anyone, or does it just change the language that game-makers use for this model, and nothing else?
- commander_ahab 13y ago
  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.
jimwalsh 13y ago
There should be 3 classifications of apps. Free, Paid, IAP. I absolutely agree that IAP apps should not be able to be marketed as 'Free'. It's quite disingenuous to do so. It's like a store saying everyone can have a free t-shirt. But then requiring that you buy $10 of stuff from the store first. You would still call that shirt free?
k-mcgrady 13y ago
I actually think if Apple were to rearrange the App Store so that we had 'free', 'paid', and 'free with IAP' categories it might make discovery a lot better too. The 'top grossing' chart if currently pretty much an 'IAP' chart so just remove IAP apps from the free chart and replace 'top grossing' with top grossing IAP apps.
ig1 13y ago
A lot of people are making false assumptions about what this is about; Here's the actual EU release rather than a blog rewrite: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-187_en.htm?locale=en http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-187_en.htm?locale... The actual issue is "Often consumers are not fully aware that they are spending money because their credit cards get charged by default." - so it's not an issue of people disliking paywalls in free games, it's an issue of people not realizing they're handing over real cash in games which are marked free. The EU also has't said they want Free/IAP games to not be marked as free, but what they said is 'Games advertised as “free” should not mislead consumers about the true costs involved' (i.e IAP should be made more explicit).
- jay_kyburz 13y ago
  Thanks for going to the source for this one.
- pgopalan 13y ago
  Pop
sklivvz1971 13y ago
As 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.
- Kiro 13y ago
  Can children have credit cards?
  - lrem 13y ago
    Effectively? Pretty much yes, the same way they can have anything...
  - sklivvz1971 13y ago
    No, but there are pre-paid Apple Store credit vouchers you can buy pretty much everywhere.
  - asima123 13y ago
    But,they can use their parents' cards if they know the password.
alkonaut 13y ago
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 only do I think telcos should be required to market the total cost (which they are already at least here) , I want to take it one step further and completely ban the marketing of the small upfront cost as the price.
- timthorn 13y ago
  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.
  - nazgulnarsil 13y ago
    if it is illegal to modify the phone until the contract is over you don't have title to it.
  - rahimnathwani 13y ago
    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.
fnayr 13y ago
People in this thread are ignoring where the true responsibility lies here, Apple (or Google). As a dev I have no control whether to call my app "Free" or "Free to download but contains IAP that are required to use the whole game." Apple has two categories, "Free" and "Paid" and places your app in the category automatically depending on whether the download price is nonzero. So really, if you want to blame anyone, blame the app store creators, not the app creators. (Of course there's still the ability to blame companies who market their apps as "FREE" in advertisements in other apps). EDIT: And of course Apple has already added the label "Includes In App Purchases" to free games with IAP. I think that's good enough.
bencoder 13y ago
This used to be much easier when I was young. Freeware vs Shareware. Just searching for "freeware <x>" would normally find me the truly free (as in beer) thing if there were multiple versions.
cyb 13y ago
There should be two different classifications for F2P games : Those who are pay to win, and others.
kalleboo 13y ago
It'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".
heydenberk 13y ago
Free as in speech, free as in beer, free as in-app
mseepgood 13y ago
There's a clear definition of what is free software: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html The EU should not invent its own.
- mcherm 13y ago
  The EU isn't defining "free software" they are defining the permissible uses of the word "free" in advertising. This has nothing to do with software per se: if someone were to sell an orange for "free" but after eating the first two segments you had to pay more to get at the other segments then the exact same regulators would be getting involved.
- Aoyagi 13y ago
  That definition is wrong, it implies that "free to use" also means "free to read/modify the code" and "resell it". By GNU definition, software like Opera isn't free. Not even something as basic as (most) Windows drivers. It also completely ignores microtransactions (though of course those wouldn't really be an issue if the user had the source). Completely useless definition for this case. It works with "free" as in "freedom", not "free to use" (it's right on the 4th line). I'm sure the people who don't breathe without looking up what Stallman thinks about it will down-vote me to hell, but that won't make this definition more relevant for this.
happyscrappy 13y ago
Netflix is a free download, will it have to be banned?
joseph4521 13y ago
I propose to just call them sharewares. I, for one, like to be able to try a new app or game before buying it.
jgalt212 13y ago
God Bless the EU. They are the only ones fighting the good fight for the consumer these days. Thanks to the lack of campaign finance reform in the U.S., all our pols are on the take to those with the deepest pockets.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
_pmf_ 13y ago
What's it with America and its need to protect greedy, fraudulent business models at the expense of honest businesses and their customers?
napowitzu 13y ago
Banning the term "free-to-play" because there are optional features that cost money means you would also need to ban the term "free admission" when a venue charges for food and drinks. You'll also have to get rid of "buy one get one free" and, well, pretty much just strike the word "free" from the dictionary altogether since technically there is not a thing in the world that is entirely without consequence, tradeoff, opportunity cost, etc.
nebstrebor 13y ago
As an adult iOS/Android user, I am annoyed by IAP games, but I don't feel like I'm being bamboozled or defrauded. Nothing warranting government interference. But as a parent of a 2 year old, I am not pleased with some kids games developers trying to take advantage of children (and I'm talking toddlers) using devices where parents haven't blocked IAP, or placing ads that they presumably get click-revenue from kids not understanding what they're clicking on...
Daiz 13y ago
Similarly misleading advertising: Telling that you can "buy" digital video when it comes encumbered with DRM that turns your "buying" into "renting for an undefined time period". Maybe European Commission could do something about that too, it would most definitely be welcome.
Zenst 13y ago
PAYGRESSION is what I call them as you can progress, but usualy pay to progress much quicker.
EGreg 13y ago
This is not unlike 1900 numbers that children called to hear bedtime stories. Apple and other OS providers should be regulated to conform to standards that include parent control over purchases done by their kids. Better labeling is always in the consumer's interest. If games and other apps encourage in-app purchasing for a good experience then this info should be clearly on the packaging. And I say this as an app developer with in app purchases! Apple already shows this info but may have to label it better.
dools 13y ago
I've said it before and I'll say it again: in-app purchases are the premium SMS scam of the '10s. Companies making a killing on IAP these days are no different from Jamster mobile club and its kin. Regulations will catch up soon enough but no doubt by then some other avenue for bilking kids out of their cash will have presented itself by then.
mikesena 13y ago
BHAHAHAHAHA I just love how many people are getting their arms up about this, then you find out its because they're the CEO of Supercell. "Free to play" should not be a model which says, "Free, but in order to actually, well, WIN, you need to pay". Take a look at Dota 2. Thats a successful f2p model. Game itself is 100% free and you can be a top player without paying a DIME.
ulfw 13y ago
It just boils down to the EU preferring to protect it's citizens/consumers/public, whereas the US loves to protect it's companies/corporations/lobbyists.

410 points by bhaumik 13y ago

That's a move in the right direction... All the nickel-and-diming is hurting the games and the industry in the long run...

wudf 13y ago

Awesome. These free-to-pay apps compromise the artistic implication the word "game" deserves.

mikhailt 13y ago

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.

jasonlotito 13y ago
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.
- taspeotis 13y ago
  > stop asking the government to be your nanny. But then who will protect my children from things I disagree with???
  - Tohhou 13y ago
    If you have no power, no personal agency, and are a perpetual victim, then, really, the state is your best friend in divorcing yourself wholesale of personal accountability. Ban allowing people to give free samples. They only make people believe that they can get more of what they want for free. Who are they to arbitrarily define how much a "sample" is when they use the word free? It's all or nothing, folks, stop trying to con the rest of us! Ban allowing people to do charity work. If people don't want to become my personal slave, then they shouldn't have offered to open the door for me. Super simple stuff.
- danieldk 13y ago
  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 purchases. I think there is a good middle ground that can be found. Instead of listing in-app purchases separately, Apple, Google, et al. could make three options: - <Price> - Free - Free with in app-purchases It would also be nice if every app store listed all the in-app purchases. Then I, as a customer, can consider beforehand whether I found the prices to be acceptable.
  - jasonlotito 13y ago
    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.
    - mikhailt 13y ago
      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.
      - jasonlotito 13y ago
        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", I don't have a problem with this. I guarantee that using that wording, people would think that the paid IAP was included with the "Free game of the week." I mean, they are already dumb enough to see a price and ignore it.
- twelvechairs 13y ago
  The same thing is common in other industries. You can't call your food pesticide-free or GM-free or gluten-free unless it really is. Is that a problem for you?
  - jasonlotito 13y ago
    But outside of games just not being playable, people are talking about not having fun without the IAP. This is fairly subjective. I didn't spend a dime on Plant's vs. Zombies 2 despite it having IAP, yet somehow people suggest you "have" to spend money to have fun. No, the games are free. > You can't call your food pesticide-free or GM-free or gluten-free unless it really is. Yeah, not even the same thing.
    - mikhailt 13y ago
      > But outside of games just not being playable, people are talking about not having fun without the IAP. This is fairly subjective. I didn't spend a dime on Plant's vs. Zombies 2 despite it having IAP, yet somehow people suggest you "have" to spend money to have fun. You didn't clarify that in your original post here. If I understood this is what you meant then I would've edited my post to remove the "fun" part but rather change it with "take full advantage of". If Plaint and Zombies were advertised as a free game, you download it but it only lets you play 5 minutes before you have to pay, then that's not a free game. It's a free demo/trial. > Yeah, not even the same thing. Yes, it is in this point we're making. The people didn't make this happen, it required the intervention of the government to mandate this type of information accuracy.
      - jasonlotito 13y ago
        > "You didn't clarify that in your original post here." What? That was literally in reply to your post which I replied to. "Their free app of the week is often so-called free games but they almost always have in-app purchases that's required to actually enjoy the game." You were talking about enjoyment from the beginning. > Yes, it is in this point we're making Not sure you know what point you are making. Sorry, I'm done dealing with people who act like trolls.
- mikhailt 13y ago
  WTF? Those SaaS/PaaS usually make clear what the plan cover and don't cover. If companies are intentionally gaming the system to mislead people with intent to profit from us, yes, I do want the government to get involved because nobody else will fix it. Apple's the curator and they're doing it, the app developers are doing it, so who do we have left to complain to? It's the government's responsibility to make sure companies follow the laws and not take advantage of people. I do not have a problem with IAP, I'm okay with companies trying to make money via that method. However, I do have a problem with companies saying those are free games where they aren't free and have paid requirements to keep playing the game.
  - jasonlotito 13y ago
    > WTF? Those SaaS/PaaS usually make clear what the plan cover and don't cover. WTF? Those free games don't cost you a thing, too! And damn, if you don't want to pay, you don't have to. Apple tells you straight out if a game, free or otherwise, has IAP. They provide you with prices. What more do you want? > I do have a problem with companies saying those are free games where they aren't free and have paid requirements to keep playing the game. So... your problem is that you don't enjoy some free games? You think if a game isn't good enough, it shouldn't be free? That's harsh. Of all the first world problems to have, this really takes the cake.
    - mikhailt 13y ago
      > ..damn, if you don't want to pay, you don't have to. Apple tells you straight out if a game, free or otherwise, has IAP. They provide you with prices. If they're saying it's the free game of the week, people actually understood it to mean it's actually free. Several of my friends and family members got confused with this and actually thought the IAP was free as well. > So... your problem is that you don't enjoy some free games? You think if a game isn't good enough, it shouldn't be free? That's harsh. What does enjoyment have to do with anything? That wasn't the point, the point is the marketing, not the games itself. I don't have a problem with the games, I have a problem with the marketing saying they're free entirely.
- djur 13y ago
  All of us, individually, are just single people. We don't have a lot of money. We don't have a lot of clout. Apple is very big. It has a lot of people, and a lot of money, and a lot of clout. Government is the countervailing force that, collectively, weak citizens can use to push back against private power. The word isn't "nanny", it's "guardian". It's "advocate".
  - baddox 13y ago
    There's a lot of mental gymnastics going on in your comment. Both Apple and government are simply a bunch of individuals. The difference is which group contains individuals that will use violence against people to get its way regardless of the people's consent.
    - djur 13y ago
      The difference is which group derives its power from the consent of the governed, actually.
      - baddox 13y ago
        And like I implied in my last comment, a lot more of what Apple does relies on the consent of its stakeholders than what governments do. There's a tragic irony in the fact that government routinely uses supposed consent to justify violence, while Apple (as far as I know, although shady stuff might happen from time to time) actually obtains consent from its stakeholders. Apple doesn't have to go around telling everyone "It's okay that we take your money in exchange for our products, because you actively consent to the exchange," because everyone knows that's how it works. And yet government, which plainly doesn't work that way, is the one that hammers into our heads the lie that the exchange is consensual. It would be laughable, except that so many people actually get fooled.
        djur 13y ago
        The nation I'm a citizen of has a government that renews the consent of the government on a regular basis with free, fair, universal elections. I'm sorry if you don't live in such a country. The guillotine is a traditional remedy for that. Apple doesn't have to do that because we don't rely on it to safeguard our life, liberty, and property. If it disappeared tomorrow the economy would take a hit but life would go on.
- seunosewa 13y ago
  I wish Apple would self-regulate instead of waiting for the government to do this for them.
- timthorn 13y ago
  SaaS & PaaS tend to be sold B2B - we have much stronger protections for consumer sales than for commercial.
- timthorn 13y ago
  SaaS & PaaS tend to be sold B2B - we have much stronger protections for consumer sales than for commercial.
- ethangarofolo 13y ago
  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!
ghshephard 13y ago
Are Candy Crush and PvZ 2 Free? I've been playing them for 4+ months and haven't spent a dime on them. Other than the bandwidth to download them, I would certainly consider them free.
- ZeroGravitas 13y ago
  Apparently Candy Crush actually gets harder after you pay, because you've marked yourself as a sucker by paying once.
  - diziet 13y ago
    This is something that should be pretty simple to test. Do you have any more details?
    - pja 13y ago
      I believe that it's not so much that it specifically gets hard after you've paid (although that's a neat dark pattern that I wouldn't put past some of the current crop of App game developers frankly!) but rather that after a certain point it simply gets too hard to progress without paying. So the developers draw you in with what appears to be a skill game that you can enjoy playing, and then after they've got you committed they gradually turn it into a money game by making it progressively more and more unfair. I can't remember where the article is that I read about all this though.
      - joesb 13y ago
        Except I have lots of friends who played to the last level of Candy Crush without buying any IAP. The game is not impossible to beat without IAP.
        Joeri 13y ago
        How many hours does it take to reach the last level? Doesn't that game have over 600 levels? At 10 minutes average per level we're talking about 100+ hours, which is several weeks of full-time occupation. If you have lots of friends who did that, we're talking about collectively months of FTE. If those had been paid hours, how much money would they have earned in that time? I'm not going anywhere with this, just wondering about the staggering amount of time that gets sucked into games like candy crush.

PythonicAlpha 13y ago

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.

hayksaakian 13y ago
well I'd rather force abusers into mental gymnastics than allow them to outright lie this could also highlight apps that are truley free
- thesimpsons1022 13y ago
  especially for parents who only want their kids to play truly free games.
Aardwolf 13y ago
If it has a different name, at least it'll be distinguishable.
monkeyspaw 13y ago
What does f2p stand for? Although I'm cynical enough to not expect this, things could be partitioned into "grant access to people with no payment on file" and "need payment on file to download this app".
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- NortySpock 13y ago
  f2p: free-to-play -- normally with in-game purchases implied.
watwut 13y ago
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.

cheery 13y ago

I was wondering why it was allowed to call something "free" that clearly was not, long while ago. There is a clear established term for "f2p" -games: shareware.

taspeotis 13y ago

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...

rytis 13y ago
I think it'd be a good thing to do. You have a process in place, and enough self discipline to avoid installing such apps. But not everyone is like that. I'm guessing majority of the users go like this: "ah, it's a free app, great, I'll get it. <10 mins in the game, when they run out of gems, bullets, whatnot> Oh, what do I do now? £0.99 is not too bad, I'll just get another pack of <blah>, so I don't have to wait 30 mins". Can people self-regulate and avoid behaving like that? Yes. Do they? I doubt it.
- thaumasiotes 13y ago
  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".
  - oneeyedpigeon 13y ago
    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.
    - thaumasiotes 13y ago
      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".

diziet 13y ago

This is silly. At the end of the day, game developers need to get paid for their effort and time spent. The days of $49 boxed games are over (on mobile). The iAP model is proven again and again across different platforms and the majority of the top grossing apps are following it. It costs money to develop games and apps. A quality title might cost over a million dollars in development. What makes the consumer believe they deserve to get it for free? iAPs are not necessarily evil - they are a great and perfect way of pricing things for different subsets of people. If you reduce iAP revenue, you make developers more driven toward ad revenue.

jkrems 13y ago
I don't think anybody was saying that games should be free or that iAPs are about to be illegal. But labeling something "free" that isn't really "free" is misleading customers. Games shouldn't be free since games aren't free to produce. But it's a reasonable expectation that games that are not free are not labeled as "free".
- diziet 13y ago
  Are apps without iAPs but with ads to be considered 'free'?
  - trentmb 13y ago
    Sure. The experience is the same for all users. Paying money doesn't change it.
  - bookwormAT 13y ago
    I personally don't consider them free. But I think most people do.
  - jkrems 13y ago
    "Free" as opposed to "paid" refers to one specific resource (money) being paid by the user to the developer. So yes, they are free in that regard. Otherwise you could start to argue that loading screens make an app non-free because they cost you time.

x0054 13y ago

The solution for this would be to change the purchase approval model where you have to enter your password to purchase anything. You can have to options: 1) authorize until closed, or 2) authorize just this purchase. This way kids could not run up charges using iAP. However, if you an adult, and you have purchased $100s of iAP, and now you feel bad about it, I have 0 sympathy for you. Overall, this is just EU being EU, nothing surprising.

eropple 13y ago
> However, if you an adult, and you have purchased $100s of iAP, and now you feel bad about it, I have 0 sympathy for you. So you understand that companies like King design their "free" games to be next-to-impossible if you don't give them money, while employing teams of psychologists to determine the best way to subvert your will through forced failure while simultaneously driving manipulative CTAs at you while you are at your (carefully cultivated) most vulnerable? And, understanding that and with that first and foremost in your mind, you have no sympathy for the people who end up on the business end of that psychological weapon? Because I certainly do. There are economies of scale to the practice of subverting people's will and in this war one side's got all the guns. These games are designed--designed--to hit the same triggers as a fucking gambling addiction, man. I am so very not OK with abandoning those wired less effectively against it. (And as I get older I can see how insidious and easy it is for this shit to worm into me when I never would have noticed it, or thought it possible, a decade ago.)
- baddox 13y ago
  How do you draw a line between deliberately designing a game to be enjoyable and have hooks in order to earn revenue, and "exploiting/subverting/forcing" them? You seem to be making a distinction between people who pay money for "legitimate" enjoyment, and people who spend money for what they think is legitimate enjoyment but is actually just a trick. I'm not convinced this is a meaningful dichotomy, and I've never heard anyone even try to explain what the difference is. I'm not a big fan of strict normative statements about where I can or can't spend my money on entertainment.
- r00fus 13y ago

nnutter 13y ago

I more strongly object to "Buying" DRM'd content that I don't actually own. It should say "License" or something.

officer_gotcha 13y ago
I have rarely seen any content that is "sold". Even if you look at your drm-free vinyl record, it tends to say that you're sold the plastic, but the content is only licensed to you for the lifetime of the medium and that you're prohibited from making copies, publicly broadcasting it and whatnot. It isn't the DRM that's restricting you, it's the copyright law.

nnutter 13y ago

Personally I would like to see iAP to be considered like advertising and for it to be more heavily regulated at child audiences. Tired of my 4 year old crying because I won't let him spend another $4 to unlock another widget.

CatMtKing 13y ago
When I was 4, I threw a tantrum in the middle of a mall because my mom wouldn't buy me a toy. In exasperation, she sat down at a bench and let me embarrass myself for a half hour. Kid's gotta learn eventually he can't get his way by being a brat, eh?
- sentenza 13y ago
  Everybody who doesn't have children, read the parent post! Most children will go through a phase where they throw tantrums. Different children have different needs, but for some you just have to let them kick and sream themselves to the realization that it doesn't get them anywere. So while it might be unfortunate that this interrupts your afternoon shopping, it is no reason to walk over to the parent an lecture them on what they should or shouldn't do, or better yet, tell them they should be ashamed of themselves! It's not like the parent is having fun or being even remotely not uncomfortable while it happens.
  - mcv 13y ago
    And shaming that parent into giving in to their child's unreasonable demands just ensures that the child will throw more tantrums in the future. And they work because bystanders will shame the parent into giving in. Don't be that person; support the parent.
    - vidarh 13y ago
      And that includes not giving eye contact, encouraging smiles or otherwise engaging with the child. But the problem of course is that for many bystanders it is hard to tell when a child is being a brat, and when a child is being mistreated. Especially if they're not a parent themselves.

smprk 13y ago

Hm. I see the good intent of protection against 'unwitting purchases' BUT still do not welcome the government intervention here. Governments have a tendency to work on 'soft targets' like software / app development. I would like to see them work first on unwitting charges/terms-and-conditions imposed by credit card or insurance companies. The order of priority just feels wrong.

whiddershins 13y ago

What about advertising? It consumes my time and attention, which is generally worth more (at least to me) than a few bucks. And advertising can have a powerful affect on susceptible minds. By this logic, all advertisement-supported games should be clearly marked as well.

baddox 13y ago
And what about people who release free software with no in-app purchases or advertising, who simply want to learn programming or get enjoyment from having people use their software? These people are exploiting their users for personal gain too!
ZeroGravitas 13y ago
I don't mind "advertising" per se, e.g there's lego apps for kids that, like Saturday morning cartoons, could be viewed basically as advertisements, but are reasonable experiences in themselves. On the other hand the apps that throw up full screen ads with tiny, hidden close buttons are annoying. Mostly they seem designed to provoke accidental clicks, which don't seem to offer any social value at all. (Also, no one seems to note that fake free apps are undermining honest for pay apps, a model which people here seem to support).

mikhailt 13y ago

Maybe instead of calling them free, use Freemium instead?

ForFreedom 13y ago

Such games should not be classified as free..

ChuckMcM 13y ago

It 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.

JAFTEM 13y ago
I don't see how unless you have some third party reviewing each game.
- redthrowaway 13y ago
  Valve seems like an obvious choice on PC. It'll be interesting to see what their console push leads to.
  - yxhuvud 13y ago
    How is valve the obvious choice? They are making games, and they are also making games that sell things in the game.
jruderman 13y ago
It often depends on your skill level, whether you take breaks from the game, and how much of a completionist you are. In some games these factors interact in complicated ways. From a regulatory perspective, I'm afraid the best we can do is: * Ban tying game mechanics to time outside the game, whether it's "wait 8 hours unless you pay" or "this reward is only available for 4 hours" or an insidious combination of the two. * Increase transparency, e.g. by asking app stores to show graphs of (time played) vs (money spent).
watwut 13y ago
Quoting "common position" document (whatever it is) http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/enforcement/docs/common_position_on_online_games_en.pdf 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.

cwyers 13y ago

Some of these are reasonable protections, but I wonder if there's that many offenders -- are there really apps that don't follow "in-app purchases should not be made without the consumer's explicit consent?" I don't have an iPhone, but in Android you have to go through a Google Play dialogue to authorize any IAPs I've made. Some, though, seem rather ineffectual. If the App Store and Google Play replace the button that says "Free" with one that says something else, and the game still doesn't cost anything up-front, is that really going to change anyone's behavior?

coldtea 13y ago
>Some, though, seem rather ineffectual. If the App Store and Google Play replace the button that says "Free" with one that says something else, and the game still doesn't cost anything up-front, is that really going to change anyone's behavior? Yes. Customer psychology is a fascinating thing. Even changing $100 to $99.9 generates more sales. And there are tons of examples like that (from the importance of colors to the important of shelf placement on supermarket). Wording is important. I think it's not about in-app purchases being made without consent. The real issue is that a game with in-app purchases is not a "free" game exactly, it's like what we used to call shareware or light version. It's a different experience than with totally free games.

mcv 13y ago

Requiring explicit authorization would be really nice. I recently discovered that even if you set Google Play to always require a password (which apparently isn't even necessarily the default(?)), you still don't require a password for 30 minutes after any purchase. That means that if I buy a game for my son to play with, any in-game purchases he randomly clicks on automatically get approved. Fortunately I get them refunded when I complain, but it's still a stupid policy.

ericdykstra 13y ago

Seems 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 other words which contain no possibility of making in-app purchases, not even on an optional basis." What is the cost of someone downloading a 'free' game only to realize that they need to pay to get the experience that they expected? They can just uninstall the game. I've paid for and downloaded games that didn't deliver the experience I expected. If the goal is protecting kids from making in-app purchases, maybe parents should learn how to use parental controls, or not attach credit cards to their children's devices. Does this really 'protect' anyone, or does it just change the language that game-makers use for this model, and nothing else?

commander_ahab 13y ago
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.

jimwalsh 13y ago

There should be 3 classifications of apps. Free, Paid, IAP. I absolutely agree that IAP apps should not be able to be marketed as 'Free'. It's quite disingenuous to do so. It's like a store saying everyone can have a free t-shirt. But then requiring that you buy $10 of stuff from the store first. You would still call that shirt free?

k-mcgrady 13y ago

I actually think if Apple were to rearrange the App Store so that we had 'free', 'paid', and 'free with IAP' categories it might make discovery a lot better too. The 'top grossing' chart if currently pretty much an 'IAP' chart so just remove IAP apps from the free chart and replace 'top grossing' with top grossing IAP apps.

ig1 13y ago

A lot of people are making false assumptions about what this is about; Here's the actual EU release rather than a blog rewrite: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-187_en.htm?locale=en http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-187_en.htm?locale... The actual issue is "Often consumers are not fully aware that they are spending money because their credit cards get charged by default." - so it's not an issue of people disliking paywalls in free games, it's an issue of people not realizing they're handing over real cash in games which are marked free. The EU also has't said they want Free/IAP games to not be marked as free, but what they said is 'Games advertised as “free” should not mislead consumers about the true costs involved' (i.e IAP should be made more explicit).

jay_kyburz 13y ago
Thanks for going to the source for this one.
pgopalan 13y ago
Pop

sklivvz1971 13y ago

As 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.

Kiro 13y ago
Can children have credit cards?
- lrem 13y ago
  Effectively? Pretty much yes, the same way they can have anything...
- sklivvz1971 13y ago
  No, but there are pre-paid Apple Store credit vouchers you can buy pretty much everywhere.
- asima123 13y ago
  But,they can use their parents' cards if they know the password.

alkonaut 13y ago

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 only do I think telcos should be required to market the total cost (which they are already at least here) , I want to take it one step further and completely ban the marketing of the small upfront cost as the price.

timthorn 13y ago
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.
- nazgulnarsil 13y ago
  if it is illegal to modify the phone until the contract is over you don't have title to it.
- rahimnathwani 13y ago
  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.

fnayr 13y ago

People in this thread are ignoring where the true responsibility lies here, Apple (or Google). As a dev I have no control whether to call my app "Free" or "Free to download but contains IAP that are required to use the whole game." Apple has two categories, "Free" and "Paid" and places your app in the category automatically depending on whether the download price is nonzero. So really, if you want to blame anyone, blame the app store creators, not the app creators. (Of course there's still the ability to blame companies who market their apps as "FREE" in advertisements in other apps). EDIT: And of course Apple has already added the label "Includes In App Purchases" to free games with IAP. I think that's good enough.

bencoder 13y ago

This used to be much easier when I was young. Freeware vs Shareware. Just searching for "freeware <x>" would normally find me the truly free (as in beer) thing if there were multiple versions.

cyb 13y ago

There should be two different classifications for F2P games : Those who are pay to win, and others.

kalleboo 13y ago

It'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".

heydenberk 13y ago

Free as in speech, free as in beer, free as in-app

mseepgood 13y ago

There's a clear definition of what is free software: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html The EU should not invent its own.

mcherm 13y ago
The EU isn't defining "free software" they are defining the permissible uses of the word "free" in advertising. This has nothing to do with software per se: if someone were to sell an orange for "free" but after eating the first two segments you had to pay more to get at the other segments then the exact same regulators would be getting involved.
Aoyagi 13y ago
That definition is wrong, it implies that "free to use" also means "free to read/modify the code" and "resell it". By GNU definition, software like Opera isn't free. Not even something as basic as (most) Windows drivers. It also completely ignores microtransactions (though of course those wouldn't really be an issue if the user had the source). Completely useless definition for this case. It works with "free" as in "freedom", not "free to use" (it's right on the 4th line). I'm sure the people who don't breathe without looking up what Stallman thinks about it will down-vote me to hell, but that won't make this definition more relevant for this.

happyscrappy 13y ago

Netflix is a free download, will it have to be banned?

joseph4521 13y ago

I propose to just call them sharewares. I, for one, like to be able to try a new app or game before buying it.

jgalt212 13y ago

God Bless the EU. They are the only ones fighting the good fight for the consumer these days. Thanks to the lack of campaign finance reform in the U.S., all our pols are on the take to those with the deepest pockets.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

_pmf_ 13y ago

What's it with America and its need to protect greedy, fraudulent business models at the expense of honest businesses and their customers?

napowitzu 13y ago

Banning the term "free-to-play" because there are optional features that cost money means you would also need to ban the term "free admission" when a venue charges for food and drinks. You'll also have to get rid of "buy one get one free" and, well, pretty much just strike the word "free" from the dictionary altogether since technically there is not a thing in the world that is entirely without consequence, tradeoff, opportunity cost, etc.

nebstrebor 13y ago

As an adult iOS/Android user, I am annoyed by IAP games, but I don't feel like I'm being bamboozled or defrauded. Nothing warranting government interference. But as a parent of a 2 year old, I am not pleased with some kids games developers trying to take advantage of children (and I'm talking toddlers) using devices where parents haven't blocked IAP, or placing ads that they presumably get click-revenue from kids not understanding what they're clicking on...

Daiz 13y ago

Similarly misleading advertising: Telling that you can "buy" digital video when it comes encumbered with DRM that turns your "buying" into "renting for an undefined time period". Maybe European Commission could do something about that too, it would most definitely be welcome.

Zenst 13y ago

PAYGRESSION is what I call them as you can progress, but usualy pay to progress much quicker.

EGreg 13y ago

This is not unlike 1900 numbers that children called to hear bedtime stories. Apple and other OS providers should be regulated to conform to standards that include parent control over purchases done by their kids. Better labeling is always in the consumer's interest. If games and other apps encourage in-app purchasing for a good experience then this info should be clearly on the packaging. And I say this as an app developer with in app purchases! Apple already shows this info but may have to label it better.

dools 13y ago

I've said it before and I'll say it again: in-app purchases are the premium SMS scam of the '10s. Companies making a killing on IAP these days are no different from Jamster mobile club and its kin. Regulations will catch up soon enough but no doubt by then some other avenue for bilking kids out of their cash will have presented itself by then.

mikesena 13y ago

BHAHAHAHAHA I just love how many people are getting their arms up about this, then you find out its because they're the CEO of Supercell. "Free to play" should not be a model which says, "Free, but in order to actually, well, WIN, you need to pay". Take a look at Dota 2. Thats a successful f2p model. Game itself is 100% free and you can be a top player without paying a DIME.

ulfw 13y ago

It just boils down to the EU preferring to protect it's citizens/consumers/public, whereas the US loves to protect it's companies/corporations/lobbyists.