European Consumer Organization goes after publishers for their in-game currency
gamingonlinux.com
gamingonlinux.com
I'm strongly against lootboxes and very concerned about videogames that are effectively casinos, but what the op described is just a videogame
I do understand the dopamine process of demo games on casino sites, but still. Allowing people to pay for that...
This is probably similar to alcohol regulations. It's not illegal to sell booze to say, a 35 year old housewife in a lot of places. But when she's too drunk to remember her own name often now it's illegal to sell her more booze. Lots of people enjoy booze, what she's doing is no longer enjoying booze. She's got a problem and so we decide it's illegal to make that problem worse.
As with booze, for some people these things have no pull. I feel no desire to drink booze, and I also feel no desire to buy video game coins. But that's fine, the regulations aren't about me. Regulations protect the vulnerable.
It'd be cool if a nonprofit free to play alternative was set up to cut into some of the damage these do.
You can choose then, the simple option is our customers can't spend enough to go over that line, the potentially more lucrative but difficult option is check on your "whales" and only allow those who match affordability criteria.
But I think this will inadvertantly lead to an overall increase in prices, probably not intended by the people pursuing this.
Why? Because most of these in-game currencies are sold in packs of varying sizes and the larger packs are usually cheaper per-currency than smaller packs. A volume discount.
Selling the currency like this means the euro value of a single unit of currency is variable, which obviously cannot be reconciled with a requirement to peg a specific euro price onto the actual goods thereof.
So assuming this action is successful, we'll probably see an end to the volume discount with large packs becoming sold at the same euro-per-currency pricing as small packs, and a currency-to-euro conversion printed on the actual goods next to the price in currency.
I'm quite confident that whatever legislation they pass will only motivate other workarounds that make the problem worse for everyone involved.
Except the politicians, of course (do they count as people?).
Namely in that the in-game currency, not ackshually being real money, can be provided as rewards during normal gameplay and distributed by the devs during events, campaigns and promotions, or for compensation ("apologems") without complicated bureaucratic tax work for both devs and players.
I also think it's just tacky seeing actual dollar/yen/pound/euro signs flying around when you're trying to just enjoy yourself, which an in-game currency nicely avoids.
None of this to say the pricing being opaque isn't a problem of course, because it is and I reiterate that I agree with the legal action here in the interests of consumers.
If there are any loopholes left they can be closed next year, but effectively playing with money should be treated like gambling is. Because that's exactly what it is.
I like F2P games. I know it's hard for someone born rich to understand this, but not everyone could afford something like World of Warcraft's $60 buy-in price with a $15 monthly subscription fee.
> not everyone could afford something like World of Warcraft's $60 buy-in price with a $15 monthly subscription
There are plenty of much cheaper and even free games that aren't employing these abusive psychological tactics. In fact they've pretty much always been there, in contrast to this newer development of microtransaction over the last 10 years.
Let's do a 1 cent to 1 Bullshit Buck scenario.
You want to buy that sweet thing that costs 1600 Bullshit Bucks? Too bad, you can only buy 2000 Bullshit Bucks at a time. Now you have 400 Bullshit Bucks that you can't do anything with, because nothing in the game store is that cheap. So you either have to buy MORE currency and hope that you can purchase something that will even things out, or you basically just handed the company $4.
The spending comes strictly from my entertainment budget, for obvious reasons.
The "leftovers" from my purchases truly don't bother me since I'll use them later anyway as I buy more.
The games are clear in what they sell (particularly Fire Emblem Heroes after they got burned once by the players). I am acutely aware what I am buying, and what I can get with them. I am happy with the experience the games provide me as a whole, else I wouldn't be playing them for the better part of a decade straight and paying them my money.
So no, the games I cited aren't scammers. You are welcome to not like the business model, but calling them scammers is unwarranted.
Showing the "real" cost should DECREASE the cost because when people see it in terms that they use day to day it feels like it's more expensive, so they are more likely to spend less. This would decrease profits for these video games.
The more likely unintended, if you can call it that, outcome would be that less games are solely free to play, relying exclusively on in-game cosmetic transactions.
I like using Steam Wallet, and got many "free" games thanks to selling items on Community Market, but all of this always seemed like some grey area. In fact, even Steam Subscriber Agreement seems to contradict itself on the matter (it claims that Steam funds have no value, but later says that an user is responsible for any income taxes on Steam funds acquired on Community Market).
There is no fake currency you can buy in varying sized bundles with opaque deals or discounts for larger purchases.
With most games with in-game currencies it’s free to play with paid cosmetics. Both the game’s price bears no relation to the production (it’s free) nor the skins’ (as they are subsidizing the free game).
I think that model is actually quite excellent (allowing people without money to still enjoy the game, while giving something to those who are happy to throw money at it, everybody being able to easily play with each other).
I am totally in favor of getting rid of in-game currencies, though. If anything, it should be like in steam, where you have an in-app wallet with a balance in your local currency.
In a normal game you'd kill orcs, pick up some stuff from each dead orc, sell the stuff to a merchant, and buy stuff you want from a different merchant. You're suggesting that should be illegal, so you should have to just... already start with all the equipment you'd ever want?
Videogame firms hit with EU complaint over 'tricking consumers'
What? Given how many that spend 0, there has to be alot of abused children.
Are in game purchases used for money loundering? Like, if you own half the stock in a company you can get a pretty good money cleaning rate.
The source they give for this is: https://www.videogameseurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/V... , which says this number is actually:
> Average spent per month (amongst all parents of children who spend in-game items)
According to the same source, 18% spend, 76% don't, and 7% are unknown. So excluding the unknowns, that's an average of 7.5€ per month.
But the 39€ must be bs. I think just a really few children have so much money left just for in-game.
It's also a well known fact in such ecosystems, the big part of the money comes from a small part of (addicted) people.
How would you know?
What if they’re rich? Then they have a lot of money and time.
Can someone be addicted to golf? Anyway, why are rich people obligated to spend their money and time in a balanced, well rounded way anyway?