Videogame firms hit with EU complaint over 'tricking consumers'
reuters.com
reuters.com
This could be dealt with swiftly with a law that says that video games must have upfront pricing— either a one time payment or a fixed-cost subscription. It's fine to have loot boxes or random rewards but how many rolls of the dice or your odds can't be affected by IRL money, and in-game items must be purchasable by either in-game currency or money, not both. Items that affect gameplay in any way must be in-game currency.
I would just ban all in-game purchases because it's still a money siphon based on social pressure but I recognize that it's a lesser evil.
What do you mean? Society would obviously collapse if we did literally anything else—the Free Market is all that keeps people from murdering each other. By endorsing regulation you're just endorsing murder.
Children do not make their own money. You can't trick someone that doesn't have money, let alone have a credit card to make purchases. It's nonsense.
>This could be dealt with swiftly with a law that says that video games must have upfront pricing— either a one time payment or a fixed-cost subscription.
And leave millions of people unable to play games. Free games are popular for the same reason websites are ad supported: people don't want to, can't afford to or lack the payment methods to pay for them.
People used their wallets to vote on this. And they chose the F2P microtransaction-laden P2W games. The vast majority of those players will spend nothing on that game. You make it buy to play and these games are dead on arrival.
If these systems truly were so nefariously predatory as they are portrayed then you'd think that more than a tiny percentage of players would be spending on them.
I don't like these mechanics either, but I grew up playing them (Korean F2P MMOs), because they were the only ones available to me. If this change why through then these games wouldn't suddenly change, they just wouldn't be available in Europe. If the entire world adopted the regulation then the game wouldn't have been made in the first place. Instead you would get "to play this $60 game you must buy our custom $350 hardware" or something else like that.
Or... You would just get less games.
If you don't like a game then just don't play it. Why do you feel the need to make others unable to play it too?
If these systems truly were so nefariously predatory as they are portrayed then you'd think that more than a tiny percentage of players would be spending on them."
In an ideal world, this would be true. However, this is not that easy when all your friends are playing those crapware games and they don't exactly want to do anything else. No matter what you choose, you lose in some way. These games have negative externalities.
So does paternalism.
Look, I understand where you are coming from, I've been there. Living in the rural area, not having access to even a store to buy games, let alone having the money at that age.
But the word you said there: "choose"... I don't think people have "chosen" this.
There are games out there that use 22 different in-game currencies [1]. The way these are interlinked with in game mechanics would make Machiavelli sweat.
Everything in these games is calculated to achieve maximum retention and profits. Yes, the farming, the wasted hours for free users, are backed by statistical and psychological precision. Everything is calculated so a free user is taken to its absolute patience limit, but never actually reach it.
While I would've been more inclined to agree with you say... 10 years ago, today's online purchases are made as frictionless as possible. Kids might not have money themselves and parents should be more cautious about these things, but young adults clearly have the means.
This is a very easy way to have an addiction problem. I do not consider the act of playing video games in general to promote addiction, but the money syphoning tactics these games employ are clearly meant to promote it. Without a sliver of a doubt. Otherwise these companies wouldn't make money to begin with.
[1]: Diablo Immortal
I certainly did. I _love_ games that give me the option to buy things in game. Especially QOL things like removed ads. But also, I have played some gacha games where I've spend some real money; usually in the 10-30$ range, because I get enough fun out of them that I like to throw the developers some money.
> There are games out there that use 22 different in-game currencies [1]. The way these are interlinked with in game mechanics would make Machiavelli sweat.
There exist games that use a predatory pattern when it comes to in-game purchases, and we should find a way to stop them. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. But I don't think it's fair to say that all in-game purchase ability is bad, or that nobody would choose such a thing; the former being an opinion, the later being a definite falsehood.
> to say [...] nobody would choose [in-game purchases is] a definite falsehood.
If the choice were between paying to remove ads and not having ads in the game in the first place, I posit that near enough nobody would choose the first option.
But back to the rest of your reply, regarding the QoL options, don't you think they impose an insidious incentive for companies to not strive for a well paced game but one that has enough filler to make people pay to not go through it?
Besides the exploitation, it's just flat out ruining gaming. The top games on iOS and Android are just IAP-laden garbage designed to manipulate people into making progress and then locking them out. But, since every company is supposed to maximize profitability, they all end up gradually adding similar mechanisms. The market can't push back in any meaningful way. Sure, you'll see some games have to backtrack (Battlefront II) or some flat out fail (Concord), but mobile is a different beast than console (for the time being, at least). And I think this is an area where regulation is the only thing that can make a level playing field.
Not to mention the F2P games arguably engage in price dumping. Consumers in all markets will gravitate towards the lowest cost option. Here, a game doesn't have to be particularly good or even good for the player, it just has to be cheaper than other games. It's making it harder for there to be a legitimate video game market. I really think Apple did the world a disservice with iOS purchase policies. IAP makes it way too easy to hide the true price and for years you couldn't even find the price until you used the app (now it's hidden away, but accessible, on the store page). It predictably led to a deluge of free apps and games that made it much harder to engage in what I'd consider more ethical commerce. Hell, I've purchased apps and still had functionality very unexpectedly locked behind IAP.
If F2P games can't find a way to profitability that doesn't rely on exploiting people, then so be it. I don't think anything is truly lost. Societal productivity would very likely increase because people wouldn't be grinding for hours just to get to that next level.
What I want is for gacha/slot machine-like mobile games to be required to disclose the odds, as well as the expected cost/time, for various rewards, much as casinos are required to disclose the odds and expected loss per hour.
I have no desire to prevent anyone from playing those kinds of games except as a collective action to change what the market rewards and that's what government is good at. I don't care if you want to spend your money on Genshin, but I do want a games market that fixes the "people say that micro transactions make games worse but they make more money for the company" problem.
I don’t think it’s abhorrent in principle that people with expendable income bankroll the game for people without in exchange for silly skins. Somebody has to pay, and I suspect the upfront purchase price will be higher than people expect.
The EU has been pretty good at legislating digital content rules in order to achieve a basic level of equivalence between your digital dress for your digital barbie and a physical one: if it doesn't fit properly, if it isn't the color advertised, basically any lack of objective or subjective conformance and they either fix it or give your money back. Permanence thereof is a bit up in the air.
Buried in the directive on digital content and services is this fun interpretation:
> Digital representations of value such as electronic vouchers or e-coupons are used by consumers to pay for different goods or services in the digital single market. Such digital representations of value are becoming important in relation to the supply of digital content or digital services, and should therefore be considered as a method of payment within the meaning of this Directive. Digital representations of value should also be understood to include virtual currencies, to the extent that they are recognised by national law. Differentiation depending on the methods of payment could be a cause of discrimination and provide an unjustified incentive for businesses to move towards supplying digital content or a digital service against digital representations of value. However, since digital representations of value have no other purpose than to serve as a method of payment, they themselves should not be considered digital content or a digital service within the meaning of this Directive.
They are inventing payment methods and then requiring them, possibly in contradiction to legal tender laws. Plus, they are legally currencies, standard contract terms notwithstanding. In principal, one needs to report that to tax authorities. But that discrimination hints at the fact that the practice probably falls under the unfair commercial practices legislation among others. This is quite obvious if you think about it, why are they introducing and requiring those currencies but to obscure the cost and attempt to circumvent our ordinary commercial laws?
This one give slightly more information.
"Today, premium in-game currencies are purposefully tricking consumers and take a big toll on children. Companies are well aware of children's vulnerability and use tricks to lure younger consumers into spending more,"
Gacha games.
Or the ones that offer a way to battle baddies with your friends but your weapons are just not quite good enough, but there's a premium upgrade...
I remember my kid playing a little "My Little Pony" game on iPad that was free and pleasant and then four levels in, suddenly "oh, you need Twilight for the next missions. Parents, Twilight costs $5."
I have literally not played an iOS game since that moment.
Do you still play games on other mobile operating systems? What does iOS have to do with the puzzle game interaction?
Apple created a race to the bottom and created the environment for these predatory games to take root. By pushing IAP and making the prices hidden for so long, it made it very difficult for games to make money on an up-front sale. Not having the ability to demo further pushed companies to a free download with an unlock later on. For a long time those prices were hidden, now they're just really annoying to find. To this day you can't tell what's going to be locked or not until you play the game for a while.
By hiding the prices up front and making transaction seem small and making the purchases incredibly easy to make, they encouraged developers to exploit human psychology in negative ways. Apple isn't particularly incentivized to fix it because they get to take 30% of all those whale purchases. And no one is going to dump their phone for a portable console and Android isn't any better, so they have a very captive market.
Many of us are addicted to our phones and/or need them for other things. They don't need to be great gaming machines. Game console manufacturers, on the other hand, need to ensure quality games or people just won't buy or use them. That market is seeing microtransactions creep in -- I think largely because of the profitability of mobile gaming -- but Nintendo/MS/Sony won't allow their platform to get flooded with garbage; it'd be the death of the brand.
I think Apple realized they could set the rules for this form of gaming, too. Plenty of people that wouldn't ever play a game on a console download games on their phones because it's convenient. They have no expectations of what a game should provide or how it should be priced. Free in attractive to everyone, even if the game turns out to not really be free. Every iPhone release Apple touts the latest GPU improvements and how it'll unlock 3D gaming, but they all but killed the market for console-like games. The reality is most gaming on their platform is some variation of a Unity slot machine.
So it’s not clear if it’s a net negative at all.
Sure some people may have addictive personalities but by and large these things are designed to get people addicted. Someone who was never addicted to, nor ever would have normally become addicted to anything can become addicted by trying something supposedly benign as a 'game'.
Likely with even lower average scruples among the ‘racers’…
I had an iPhone before IAP. There was a marked shift in the type and quality of games once IAP took hold. I suppose we can argue that the app store was in its infancy, but as a consumer I've never liked IAP. It was pretty clear to me it was a very easy way for company's to not be forthcoming with their pricing. Sometimes they want to exploit the sunk cost fallacy. In the mobile gaming space, it's often more nefarious. And we know it's by design because these companies hire psychologists specifically to find new ways to get people to part with their money.
The fact it's so easy and you never have to open a wallet also makes impulse purchases way more likely. And, unlike physical goods, there's no room for buyer's remorse. No returns, no refunds. You can try to do a chargeback, but say goodbye to the rest of your Apple account and enjoy owning a brick. Sure, for some people making instantaneous digital purchases it's a way to shave 30s off an infrequent activity. For many people it takes away their ability to consciously push back on impulses.
I don't think it's a given these sorts of games would have just happened without Apple making it so easy on devices people are already addicted to. We've had decades of popular video game consoles of all sorts -- computers whose only purpose is to play video games -- and this was not an emergent phenomenon. It seems to be pretty unique to mobile phones. It hasn't stopped game publishers from trying to port similar tactics to consoles, but it also largely hasn't taken root there despite their best efforts.
Undoubtedly, some people spend hundreds on skins and it may not be money they have, but I'd argue even that digital good is better than P2W mechanics like needing to buy hearts just to beat a level. A level that's impossible to beat otherwise, but the game will waste your time and build up your frustration thinking you might be able to do it. I think it's ugly and unethical. Apple makes a boatload of money from it and it's one area where Apple really hasn't stepped in to protect their customers. Meanwhile they've fought hard against alternative app stores and sideloading under the guise of protecting their customers.
FYI, Google's not immune from any of this criticism. They just were followers in the whole thing so I fault Apple. Google failed as a competitor to provide a better alternative and settled into also raking in 30%, enjoying the privilege of a duopoly.
Just that the other racers will nonetheless still compete to increase their share, likely with even lower scruples with Apple out.
https://turbine.games/2020/04/22/getting-more-with-less-6-hi...
Basically the MMO playbook.
Unfortunately my brain actually thinks some of these things are "fun". (Spending/losing $1M in a game is probably not fun however.)
The whole blog is interesting reading, if you have a strong stomach.
I honestly can't do it. This game is so shallow, I played it for two hours and felt like I've seen everything there is to see. Player's minds are incredibly different in the way they approach and consume media like that, including the willingness and ability to go through days of grinding for very small rewards.
when you put it that way, I feel like players of grindy f2p/mmo/etc. games could possibly be successful in embarking on grindy IRL activities like exercise programs, learning to play a musical instrument, studying for the bar exam, ...
I guess the trick would be to add randomized rewards and collectables to keep them (us?) hooked.
Ring Fit Adventure actually has a collectable aspect, as well as level grinding, component item farming, and non-uniform rewards. Leetcode and duolingo are gamified to a lesser degree, and I'm not sure it works as well, though maybe it doesn't need to. Duolingo's non-uniform gem rewards feel more annoying than exciting.
...some bicycle shops, some guitar shops...US stores (before tax price shown).