
"Free-to-play" misleading advertising in Europe - bhaumik
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-02-27-free-to-play-misleading-advertising-in-europe
======
ig1
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...](http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_IP-14-187_en.htm?locale=en)

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
Thanks for going to the source for this one.

------
alkonaut
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
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.

~~~
michaelt
Here in the UK, when buying vehicle insurance I have the option to pay for the
year upfront, or to pay monthly. Paying monthly costs more as you effectively
get a loan for the upfront fee and pay off the loan over the course of a year.
So the documents often present it like so:

Pay Upfront: £57.16

Pay Monthly: Deposit: £5.45 Installments: (11 x £5.45) Total: £65.40 APR:
35.3%

~~~
rschmitty
You get that in the US too, however I wouldn't call it a loan because if you
sign for a 1 year term and then cancel or switch providers after a month you
get your money back

It's more like a SaaS offering you a discount for paying yearly

------
taspeotis
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...

~~~
redthrowaway
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
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
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.

~~~
smsm42
That depends on the question if you think it's OK for you to take the rights
away from someone that you think are stupider than you. And if you think it's
OK if someone who thinks they are smarter than you would take your rights
away. If you think that'd be fine - then indeed there's no reason to legalize
drugs, at least until people smarter than you decide there is. There's also no
point of discussing it, since the decision lies with people smarter than you
anyway.

But if you think people are smart enough to vote and to discuss public matters
and to make right decisions for themselves - then there's no reason why
decisions about what to eat and what to drink and what to inhale should be any
different.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
People are selfish all the time. They threaten others with guns, to get cash.
They blackmail, and coerce, and cheat. Smart people too.

Now, don't know if selfish irresponsible use of intoxicants rises to that
level, but the argument can be made. E.g. alcohol laws are everywhere, and its
not even a very good intoxicant.

~~~
smsm42
Argument can be also made it's selfish for you not to give me half of your
money. So I am entitled to threaten you with a gun, to get cash you're
selfishly denying me. There can be a lot of arguments made once you abandon
the notion of rights that people have.

~~~
Dylan16807
Obviously we are talking about reasonable arguments.

I think if you go out and make a poll you will find intense disagreement on
whether there is a right to [severe] self-harm. Please don't strawman into the
idea of abandoning all rights.

------
nnutter
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.

~~~
brudgers
Next time a child asks for permission to make an in app purchase, turn off the
electronics go down to the creek and jump in puddles together.

They are only four once. It's right now or it doesn't happen. There's no
second chance.

~~~
Dewie
_Kids should have a childhood like I experienced /like I wanted, or else it
will be a wasted childhood._

I don't think that kids should play a lot of video games (I don't know what
they should or should not do, since I'm not a child development expert). But
this whole adults looking back at their "organic" childhood as the one true
way to grow up ever is getting kind of old.

 _Lego? Damnit, take those silly toys away from him and give 'em a garn and
let them make up their own games. I tell you these advanced toys destroys the
natural creativity of children. Give 'em a stick and some garn and they will
make up their own games; that's how kids are SUPPOSED to be._

~~~
brudgers
I was working as a City Planner and an elderly black man was sitting in the
visitor chair across the desk and looking out the window. He'd come there so I
could say "no". He wasn't a first time developer. He'd known he'd get no when
he'd been sent to the office with my desk. That's why he hadn't come there
first and now that we'd gone through the motions and. the anticipated "no" had
been said he asked if I fished.

A little. I like to take my son.

You will never regret a moment spent fishing with him.

I'm not waxing wistful for my childhood or for one I didn't have,. I'm waxing
wistful for my first years as a parent and for the things I did and wish I had
done more

~~~
vidarh
Same still applies, though: You're jumping to conclusions about what is
important to others.

I play video games with my 4 year old. He loves it, and he loves _doing it
with me_ more than the games themselves. We take him out lots too, but I have
equally fond memories of times I've spent playing games with him as the ones
I've spent with him on outdoors activities.

~~~
brudgers
Three years and two jobs later we were picking up dinner from the grocery deli
on the way home from work and preschool and up he came and asked if we were
going fishing and it wasn't for a day or two that I remembered who he was and
what he had said the one time we had met.

It's hard for me to keep priorities in order sometimes. Even when I know, I
just forget what really matters. Good luck.

~~~
Dewie
> Three years and two jobs later we were picking up dinner from the grocery
> deli on the way home from work and preschool and up he came and asked if we
> were going fishing and it wasn't for a day or two that I remembered who he
> was and what he had said the one time we had met.

What is this, a novel in the making? The whole strange-person-who-makes-an-
unforgettable-impact has to be tied with some actual event, not just a random
person who impacts some _sage_ advice, with no build up or context for
imparting that _sage_ advice. Being old doesn't quite cut it.

If it's from your own life, then well... I guess we all know one or two
eccentric elderly people.

~~~
brudgers
The top level comment struck a chord because my son who used to be four was
sleeping down the hall when I read it. Then in the morning a clarification
that jumping in puddles is not something I claim by entitlement but something
I can strive to create.

A lot of people came through my office to hear "no" or "yes" or "it depends".
Only one of them had much impact on my life and that of my family and that's
because the moment wasn't about making money or rather his not fixing to be
not making money with his bright idea that wouldn't fly. He was fully present.
That's why he could pick me out later in another context and remember what he
had said and that's what makes it stick.

Deciding to put aside all the bullshit and be present for a child in a way
that sticks is what matters. And it's hard sometimes.

------
mikhailt
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
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.

~~~
danieldk
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
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
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
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.

~~~
jbinto
If it's "unlock extra maps for $5" I think that's fair.

If it's "125 tokens for $10", that's not really telling you the price. Video
arcades used this abstraction tactic successfully. Make people convert money
upfront, make the exchange rate difficult to calculate mentally, ensure that
the user is left with worthless "change" so they top up again, to avoid being
left with sunk costs.

If every time an IAP is offered it showed prices in real $/€, people would
think twice.

~~~
jasonlotito
I've never read so many comments from so many people wanting to give money to
products they hate to support companies that use tactics you deplore.

------
sklivvz1971
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
Can children have credit cards?

~~~
sklivvz1971
No, but there are pre-paid Apple Store credit vouchers you can buy pretty much
everywhere.

------
ChuckMcM
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
I don't see how unless you have some third party reviewing each game.

~~~
redthrowaway
Valve seems like an obvious choice on PC. It'll be interesting to see what
their console push leads to.

~~~
yxhuvud
How is valve the obvious choice? They are making games, and they are also
making games that sell things in the game.

------
x0054
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
_> 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
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.

------
fnayr
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.

------
smprk
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.

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

------
whiddershins
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
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!

------
ericdykstra
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
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.

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

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

------
PythonicAlpha
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.

~~~
monkeyspaw
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".

~~~
NortySpock
f2p: free-to-play -- normally with in-game purchases implied.

------
napowitzu
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.

------
mcv
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.

------
kalleboo
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".

------
diziet
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
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
Are apps without iAPs but with ads to be considered 'free'?

~~~
trentmb
Sure. The experience is the same for all users. Paying money doesn't change
it.

------
cwyers
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
> _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.

------
EGreg
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.

------
nebstrebor
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...

------
mikesena
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.

------
k-mcgrady
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.

------
jimwalsh
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?

------
dools
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.

------
Daiz
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.

------
bencoder
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.

------
jgalt212
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.

------
ulfw
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.

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

------
joseph4521
I propose to just call them sharewares. I, for one, like to be able to try a
new app or game before buying it.

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

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

------
mikhailt
Maybe instead of calling them free, use _Freemium_ instead?

------
mseepgood
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.

~~~
Aoyagi
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.

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

------
ForFreedom
Such games should not be classified as free..

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

