7 ms·

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

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".
      - rytis 13y ago
        No one is suggesting to ban anything, or enforce people's behaviour in any way. What they want to do is to enforce correct labels on items that people are purchasing. If it says "free" it must be free full stop. If it is only partially free, then it must say so. It's like getting a "free" train ticket, but then when you want to travel you're asked to pay for boarding the train.
girvo 13y ago
I'm glad I'm not the only one there. Although some apps a quick search will show that it's worth it (Paper by 53 comes to mind). Which is something I find interesting: people talk about "discovery" and reviews of apps being difficult. You're on a device that's sole purpose is internet connectivity! Use the browser, Luke!
- watwut 13y ago
  Not sure if you know it, but there is zero information on the internet for the wast majority of apps. Even if there are reviews, they are done by people who played for five minutes and then wrote something as fast as possible. I wanted to play (and buy) a game the other day. It turned out that unless friend brought and recommended, there is no way to learn about gameplay, difficulty, length, whether there are in app purchases or not etc. The only way to learn those things is to buy and then find out you do not like the game or that it is very short. It was not big deal for me, I googled for couple of hours and them brought nothing. There are hundreds of games being published every day and only maybe 1% of them are any good. That IS discovery problem and it is problem mainly for game developers. Since customers like me have no way to distinguish between those good games and bad games, we buy something random and then see. The result is that good and bad games earn the same, since they are largely brought on random. The main losers are here good games developers.
  - girvo 13y ago
    I suppose I don't personally get enough apps to have found that myself; usually if there's an app I'm considering it's fairly simple to find a decent review, but they are bigger names. I wonder if there is a solution for that then? The same way as things like Polygon keep on top of standard games, a mobile focused review site that has far higher quality than regular "review sites" (that yeah, most of which are pretty terrible).
redthrowaway 13y ago
Unfortunately, most people aren't even that sophisticated. The average user isn't going to be able to differentiate between a free game and one designed to pry their wallets open. I don't know if the solution to that is regulation, but it can't be reliance on the uninformed to know what's good for them. The exploitative industry moves faster than any but the most well-informed and most jaded.
- ithkuil 13y ago
  Indeed. There is always a point where everyone of us starts being not sophisticated. Each time somebody tells me that we shouldn't protect stupid people, I remember not feeling very smart in front of pages of legalese in insurance and banking contracts. I keep thinking, yes they are probably going to screw me, but somebody is working to prevent them from screwing me too overtly.
  - paulhauggis 13y ago
    I guess I didn't realize the average person was that stupid. I play games with in-app purchases. It's pretty easy just not to pay for them. If the public is this bad with something as simple as in-app purchases, why should we ever legalize drugs? This is a serious question.
    - ithkuil 13y ago
      It's not a requirement for a customer protection law to be protecting only the average citizen. Even if there is a minority of people affected but significantly the state feels entitled to act, rightfully or not. A good example is drug use/abuse.
    - jacalata 13y ago
      Well, for one thing the legal audience for these games includes children, whereas even for legalized drugs such as alcohol, I don't know of a country where children are a legitimate audience.
    - Vik1ng 13y ago
zik 13y ago
Unlike the US, the EU has strong legislation against deceptive advertising. Saying that a game is "free" when it's designed for profit is intentionally deceptive. It's really as simple as that.
- tolmasky 13y ago
  Games with ads are free but designed for profit. Is that misleading too?
  - showsover 13y ago
    That is not misleading because the player does not need to spend money. Which is the definition of 'free' that is used.
    - fnayr 13y ago
      The player does not need to spend money for the majority of freemium games either.
      - oneeyedpigeon 13y ago
        'Need' is tricky to define in this case. Many 'freemium' games are very different experiences based on whether or not you pay via additional IAP. From what I gather, not having actually played it, Dungeon Keeper is about the most extreme example of this. It sounds like you really do need to pay in order to play the actual game, as opposed to playing something which many would describe as not really being the game.
        s_kilk 13y ago
        Agreed, the recent Dungeon Keeper release was effectively unplayable without buying the IAP items.
        jasonlotito 13y ago
masklinn 13y ago
> If the in-app purchases are "x00 Special In-Game Currency Units" then I don't install the game. That's sensible to false-positives though, a number of games are perfectly playable (with no roadblock) without getting special currency units, e.g. jetpack joyride (a fairly standard infinite runner) or Solomon's Boneyard. The currency units are mostly there for developer support and if you can't be arsed to play the game (for some reason).
- nhaehnle 13y ago
  > ... sensible ... You probably meant to write "sensitive" or "susceptible" or something like that. (Just a well-meaning remark especially if you, like me, are not a native speaker).
just2n 13y ago
Sure you avoid the games, but they're clearly making tons of money. People find things that "work" -- they earn tons of money. They repeat. Other people see that it works. They copy. Suddenly the world is full of games that have artificial limitations that can be passed by waiting N hours or by paying $N. I say we boycott applications that do this. But if it's easier to legislate, then by all means.
ctz 13y ago
Apple added all this only after losing a massive class action on IAP. So, you're right that we probably don't need legislation now to avoid being ripped off, but it would have been preferable to have it when people were being ripped off. That does require consumer legislation to keep up with technology, though.

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".
    - rytis 13y ago
      No one is suggesting to ban anything, or enforce people's behaviour in any way. What they want to do is to enforce correct labels on items that people are purchasing. If it says "free" it must be free full stop. If it is only partially free, then it must say so. It's like getting a "free" train ticket, but then when you want to travel you're asked to pay for boarding the train.

girvo 13y ago

I'm glad I'm not the only one there. Although some apps a quick search will show that it's worth it (Paper by 53 comes to mind). Which is something I find interesting: people talk about "discovery" and reviews of apps being difficult. You're on a device that's sole purpose is internet connectivity! Use the browser, Luke!

watwut 13y ago
Not sure if you know it, but there is zero information on the internet for the wast majority of apps. Even if there are reviews, they are done by people who played for five minutes and then wrote something as fast as possible. I wanted to play (and buy) a game the other day. It turned out that unless friend brought and recommended, there is no way to learn about gameplay, difficulty, length, whether there are in app purchases or not etc. The only way to learn those things is to buy and then find out you do not like the game or that it is very short. It was not big deal for me, I googled for couple of hours and them brought nothing. There are hundreds of games being published every day and only maybe 1% of them are any good. That IS discovery problem and it is problem mainly for game developers. Since customers like me have no way to distinguish between those good games and bad games, we buy something random and then see. The result is that good and bad games earn the same, since they are largely brought on random. The main losers are here good games developers.
- girvo 13y ago
  I suppose I don't personally get enough apps to have found that myself; usually if there's an app I'm considering it's fairly simple to find a decent review, but they are bigger names. I wonder if there is a solution for that then? The same way as things like Polygon keep on top of standard games, a mobile focused review site that has far higher quality than regular "review sites" (that yeah, most of which are pretty terrible).

redthrowaway 13y ago

Unfortunately, most people aren't even that sophisticated. The average user isn't going to be able to differentiate between a free game and one designed to pry their wallets open. I don't know if the solution to that is regulation, but it can't be reliance on the uninformed to know what's good for them. The exploitative industry moves faster than any but the most well-informed and most jaded.

ithkuil 13y ago
Indeed. There is always a point where everyone of us starts being not sophisticated. Each time somebody tells me that we shouldn't protect stupid people, I remember not feeling very smart in front of pages of legalese in insurance and banking contracts. I keep thinking, yes they are probably going to screw me, but somebody is working to prevent them from screwing me too overtly.
- paulhauggis 13y ago
  I guess I didn't realize the average person was that stupid. I play games with in-app purchases. It's pretty easy just not to pay for them. If the public is this bad with something as simple as in-app purchases, why should we ever legalize drugs? This is a serious question.
  - ithkuil 13y ago
    It's not a requirement for a customer protection law to be protecting only the average citizen. Even if there is a minority of people affected but significantly the state feels entitled to act, rightfully or not. A good example is drug use/abuse.
  - jacalata 13y ago
    Well, for one thing the legal audience for these games includes children, whereas even for legalized drugs such as alcohol, I don't know of a country where children are a legitimate audience.
  - Vik1ng 13y ago

zik 13y ago

Unlike the US, the EU has strong legislation against deceptive advertising. Saying that a game is "free" when it's designed for profit is intentionally deceptive. It's really as simple as that.

tolmasky 13y ago
Games with ads are free but designed for profit. Is that misleading too?
- showsover 13y ago
  That is not misleading because the player does not need to spend money. Which is the definition of 'free' that is used.
  - fnayr 13y ago
    The player does not need to spend money for the majority of freemium games either.
    - oneeyedpigeon 13y ago
      'Need' is tricky to define in this case. Many 'freemium' games are very different experiences based on whether or not you pay via additional IAP. From what I gather, not having actually played it, Dungeon Keeper is about the most extreme example of this. It sounds like you really do need to pay in order to play the actual game, as opposed to playing something which many would describe as not really being the game.
      - s_kilk 13y ago
        Agreed, the recent Dungeon Keeper release was effectively unplayable without buying the IAP items.
        jasonlotito 13y ago

masklinn 13y ago

> If the in-app purchases are "x00 Special In-Game Currency Units" then I don't install the game. That's sensible to false-positives though, a number of games are perfectly playable (with no roadblock) without getting special currency units, e.g. jetpack joyride (a fairly standard infinite runner) or Solomon's Boneyard. The currency units are mostly there for developer support and if you can't be arsed to play the game (for some reason).

nhaehnle 13y ago
> ... sensible ... You probably meant to write "sensitive" or "susceptible" or something like that. (Just a well-meaning remark especially if you, like me, are not a native speaker).

just2n 13y ago

Sure you avoid the games, but they're clearly making tons of money. People find things that "work" -- they earn tons of money. They repeat. Other people see that it works. They copy. Suddenly the world is full of games that have artificial limitations that can be passed by waiting N hours or by paying $N. I say we boycott applications that do this. But if it's easier to legislate, then by all means.

ctz 13y ago

Apple added all this only after losing a massive class action on IAP. So, you're right that we probably don't need legislation now to avoid being ripped off, but it would have been preferable to have it when people were being ripped off. That does require consumer legislation to keep up with technology, though.