3 ms·

I've often thought that F2P games should be strictly regulated like gambling is. No one questions the 18+ law on fruit machines in the UK, but we allow a roule

by adwf 13y ago

I've often thought that F2P games should be strictly regulated like gambling is. No one questions the 18+ law on fruit machines in the UK, but we allow a roulette style IAP for a F2P game with no regulation? The worst part is, if you sent kids into a casino, there's at least a chance they'd make their money back! We regulate gambling because its effects are insidious and the addiction devastating. It can destroy lives. How is "coercive monetisation" in F2P games any different, other than the fact that it's a relatively new phenomenon?

whichdan 13y ago
What sort of regulation are you envisioning?
- adwf 13y ago
  I'd probably suggest some sort of restriction on IAP amounts. Under-16s in the UK can play fruit machines, but only upto a £5 jackpot before it gets classified as adult gambling where serious amounts of money can be lost. This is on the assumption that people won't bother putting more than £5 in, as they know that they won't make a profit. This assumption doesn't hold in the IAP-world as the "profit" for the player is ostensibly, having a fun time. Although as the article shows, in reality a lot of these game monetisation tactics are really about players paying to remove an artificially enforced pain on the player, rather than to increase the fun. So maybe just a hard limit on total IAP purchases for each game targeted at under-16s. Also, the same restrictions that apply to gambling advertising should apply to F2P/IAP games, for the exact same reasons. The trickiest part about it would be defining what is an acceptable game vs. an unacceptable game for the purposes of regulation. When does an acceptable F2P game like Team Fortress 2 become an unacceptable game like Candy Crush Saga? Maybe there are some people out there who think TF2 is completely unacceptable too. I'm not saying it isn't difficult, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. In my mind I see both gambling and these F2P "money" games occupying the exact same ethical arena. EDIT: The hard cap on IAP purchases for under-16s doesn't even need to be all that low, it just needs to exist at all. Placing it at £30 would limit the potential damage done to the child, whilst also being relatively fair to the game company as it's roughly the same price as a game bought off the shelf.
mcintyre1994 13y ago
I can't imagine a set of regulations that would be reasonable. I have friends who have completed all the levels of Candy Crush Saga without spending any money, yet it's probably the most successful example of this ever. According to the article 80% never paid. For the example you cite I completely agree, taking a casino game and making it IAP is horrible and should be regulated like that. However you word that though, you're going to have horrible developers find a way around it. Anything short of banning IAPs is going to be worked around, and banning IAPs doesn't sound like a reasonable idea. The other thing is 18+ as regulation, I'd be staggered if that was pulled off successfully. Lots of things on the internet are 18+ and not used exclusively by adults. That's an unworkable regulation by any precedent. This is really horrible, but I don't see any way to regulate it successfully.

by adwf 13y ago

whichdan 13y ago

What sort of regulation are you envisioning?

adwf 13y ago
I'd probably suggest some sort of restriction on IAP amounts. Under-16s in the UK can play fruit machines, but only upto a £5 jackpot before it gets classified as adult gambling where serious amounts of money can be lost. This is on the assumption that people won't bother putting more than £5 in, as they know that they won't make a profit. This assumption doesn't hold in the IAP-world as the "profit" for the player is ostensibly, having a fun time. Although as the article shows, in reality a lot of these game monetisation tactics are really about players paying to remove an artificially enforced pain on the player, rather than to increase the fun. So maybe just a hard limit on total IAP purchases for each game targeted at under-16s. Also, the same restrictions that apply to gambling advertising should apply to F2P/IAP games, for the exact same reasons. The trickiest part about it would be defining what is an acceptable game vs. an unacceptable game for the purposes of regulation. When does an acceptable F2P game like Team Fortress 2 become an unacceptable game like Candy Crush Saga? Maybe there are some people out there who think TF2 is completely unacceptable too. I'm not saying it isn't difficult, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. In my mind I see both gambling and these F2P "money" games occupying the exact same ethical arena. EDIT: The hard cap on IAP purchases for under-16s doesn't even need to be all that low, it just needs to exist at all. Placing it at £30 would limit the potential damage done to the child, whilst also being relatively fair to the game company as it's roughly the same price as a game bought off the shelf.

mcintyre1994 13y ago

I can't imagine a set of regulations that would be reasonable. I have friends who have completed all the levels of Candy Crush Saga without spending any money, yet it's probably the most successful example of this ever. According to the article 80% never paid. For the example you cite I completely agree, taking a casino game and making it IAP is horrible and should be regulated like that. However you word that though, you're going to have horrible developers find a way around it. Anything short of banning IAPs is going to be worked around, and banning IAPs doesn't sound like a reasonable idea. The other thing is 18+ as regulation, I'd be staggered if that was pulled off successfully. Lots of things on the internet are 18+ and not used exclusively by adults. That's an unworkable regulation by any precedent. This is really horrible, but I don't see any way to regulate it successfully.