Google will cease to advertise games as "free" when they include in-app purchases and that it will also require payment verification before each purchase.
This line confused me a little. Because a game that costs no money to acquire and play, but allows for in game purchases is still free, right?
I don't like a lot of what these free games do and the way they market themselves, but they are still free. Restrictive, limiting, asking for money they might all be, but free.
Hm. Although unrelated, it's starting to feel like the "caution, hot" warnings on coffee.
It's more like someone selling you a cup of coffee without the cup (and no you cant bring your own)... The problem is when games like this are designed to be almost impossible to play without microtransactions. It is one thing to have free to play games where you can buy items to customize your character, but free to play games like this is one tiny step from actually being a scam. With full disclosure of how the microstransactions work with the games internal economy most of the problems with it will go away.
I get you, about some games requiring money to do more than, say, one minutes worth of play a day or what have you. But they are still actually free to obtain and you can play them without paying for anything.
I agree that full disclosure as to the nature of their limitations could be a good thing, but I find it strange to now allow companies to call their game free, when it actually is free. See where I'm coming from?
Yea, but they aren't called "Free to Obtain" though, now are they? They are called "Free to Play", which just isn't the case. And before we go in to technicalities, let's define what "play" actually mean:
Play
verb (used without object)
to exercise or employ oneself in diversion, amusement, or recreation.
to do something in sport that is not to be taken seriously.
to amuse oneself; toy; trifle (often followed by with).
to take part or engage in a game.
to take part in a game for stakes; gamble.
And, most (not all) "free to play" games seems to be quite far of the mark in most applicable descriptions of the word without putting in at least some money. Either way, you void one of the definitions: Free if you pay or Play if you don't.
I was thinking more along the lines of Dungeon Keeper Mobile, rather than typical MMORPG business practice (which, frankly, I can't comment on because I have never played an MMORPG in my life).
However, I have sunk considerable amounts of cash into Mass Effect 3 multiplayer and I regret it to this day. Live and learn, I guess.
Google will cease to advertise games as "free" when they include in-app purchases and that it will also require payment verification before each purchase.
This line confused me a little. Because a game that costs no money to acquire and play, but allows for in game purchases is still free, right?
I don't like a lot of what these free games do and the way they market themselves, but they are still free. Restrictive, limiting, asking for money they might all be, but free.
Hm. Although unrelated, it's starting to feel like the "caution, hot" warnings on coffee.
**Rolls eyes** yes because consumer labeling and protection is always health and safety gone mad. This mentality towards consumer projection is baffling. This is for our benefit and plugs gaps in our laws.
I have some experience with consumer product labeling and advertising regulation in the UK and EU and if someone advertised a physical product or service as "Free" and then used that as merely a shell to try and get you to pay they would fall foul of consumer protection laws. It would be singled out as a con. I HATE the weaseling "Well technically if you wait 7 days and grind the same item every 15 minutes to progress it's technically free" No. It is in no way free. The experience you get as a free player in no way reflects a full experience and is out of line with the word "Free". The term is merely a means to an end to get users to download your store-front. The game makers only make you able to progress at all as a thin fig-leaf against being regulated and brought into line with what everyone else has to do.
Games like cash of clans, Dungeon keeper mobile, the fucking surfs game and Candy Crush take every opportunity to trick, frustrate and cajole the player into paying. We have consumer projection laws for a reason. It's so con-men can't get away with swindling people. These games function in a dishonest way that no other industry or sector would get away with. This is merely the existing spirit of the law catching up to digital products.
I'm not feeling it. As I said in a comment after the one you quoted, if we are talking about a game that locks you out of large portions of the experience without paying and giving you no other options, then yeah, that's a demo and not a free game. But if the game can be reasonably played* without ever paying, then I don't see the problem. Not being able to play for more than an hour a day or having it take twice as long to finish doesn't make the game not free. It can be shitty, poorly made or greedy, but it can still be a free game.
*By reasonable I mean what a person could honestly and properly expect to gain from the experience without paying a cent. So locking the player out of the next level for a week at a time is not reasonable, but only being able to do a level a day would be, for example.
I don't really care if 'you're not feeling it' the reality on the ground is that "Could be free" =/= Free. Giving people lots of hoops to jump through and trying to force them to pay negates their right to call anything 'free'. Consumer projection law already covers instances like this for all other non digital goods. That is one of the best things about manufacturing and trading in Europe; the standards in place are very high. the UK ASA and the EU commission have finally brought the rules and the law into the 21st century and they have given a resounding thumbs down to companies like EA or Zynga or Supercell mislabeling their games.
Perhaps you need to look up consumer projection laws because the pathetic defense of "Well i COULD argue it is free" hasn't help up for decades. Imagine if a company advertised a hair-dyer as 'free' but it cut-out after 20 seconds and demanded £15 or it wouldn't function for the next 24 hours. They wouldn't be allowed under existing rules to practice like that and call their product 'free'. Sure you COULD dry your hair for free with it, i mean it would be difficult but you COULD do it.
Trading law sees through tissue thin defenses like that. You're technicality does not work. You can't get around consumer projection law like that. That's why it exists. "Free to play" is a Euphemism. When you are dealing with customers you can't talk in eupamhsims. It's clear as day under existing laws governing physical goods that, when applied to digital ones, adverting a monetized product as "Free" is illegal. It simply just is.
Things you need to look up:
UK trading standard laws
EU trading standards laws
"The spirit of the law" as well as "The letter of the law" and how that is applied.
The various tests and measures EU and UK law uses to discover if a practice is deceptive or misleading.
I've had experience working within UK and EU directives on products and servicing. I had to learn about them and a working knowledge is essential to any kind of manufacturing and selling operation. There are specific and stringent rules governeing what you can and can't label and labeling something as "FREE" carries with it a whole raft of measures you must live up to as not to be seen to be misleading a customer.
The words you put on a spanner, a washing machine or a video-game are legally tested and constitute legal language. Your product descripition is tantamount to a ontract bewtwen you and the buyer that what you are saying is accuare. Here let me just quote the actual law at you since you don't seem to get it:
"Under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, all products must be 'fit for purpose', be of satisfactory quality and fit its description. This means that your products must fulfill the purpose the customer has been led to expect and the reasons that led them to buy it."
These laws were drawn up before digital products existed. These digital products existed in some kind of wild west outside of this law because they were new. Now they are simply having to abide by the law, which if they were a PHYSICAL product they would have fallen foul of decades ago. Look at my example of the physical product. That would fall foul of almost every part of the law, especially the "Fit for purpose" clause. Digital products must now abide by similar rules.
That's a well constructed argument and you made your point well, but I simply don't agree with you. I think it's just one of those things were people don't see eye to eye. It's not because you didn't make a solid argument, I just don't agree with it.
To me, a free game doesn't really have to do anything. It's free. You don't pay for it, so if you don't like it, you don't play it any more. I don't really see how anyone can care that something given to them for free is not free to play the amount they want of it. That's just me.
Joos said:
Fancy Pants said:
Frostnatt said:
Fancy Pants said:
Steven Bogos said:
Google will cease to advertise games as "free" when they include in-app purchases and that it will also require payment verification before each purchase.
This line confused me a little. Because a game that costs no money to acquire and play, but allows for in game purchases is still free, right?
I don't like a lot of what these free games do and the way they market themselves, but they are still free. Restrictive, limiting, asking for money they might all be, but free.
Hm. Although unrelated, it's starting to feel like the "caution, hot" warnings on coffee.
It's more like someone selling you a cup of coffee without the cup (and no you cant bring your own)... The problem is when games like this are designed to be almost impossible to play without microtransactions. It is one thing to have free to play games where you can buy items to customize your character, but free to play games like this is one tiny step from actually being a scam. With full disclosure of how the microstransactions work with the games internal economy most of the problems with it will go away.
I get you, about some games requiring money to do more than, say, one minutes worth of play a day or what have you. But they are still actually free to obtain and you can play them without paying for anything.
I agree that full disclosure as to the nature of their limitations could be a good thing, but I find it strange to now allow companies to call their game free, when it actually is free. See where I'm coming from?
Yea, but they aren't called "Free to Obtain" though, now are they? They are called "Free to Play", which just isn't the case. And before we go in to technicalities, let's define what "play" actually mean:
Play
verb (used without object)
to exercise or employ oneself in diversion, amusement, or recreation.
to do something in sport that is not to be taken seriously.
to amuse oneself; toy; trifle (often followed by with).
to take part or engage in a game.
to take part in a game for stakes; gamble.
And, most (not all) "free to play" games seems to be quite far of the mark in most applicable descriptions of the word without putting in at least some money. Either way, you void one of the definitions: Free if you pay or Play if you don't.
Could you show me an example of a game that is marketed as free but doesn't allow the player to play with it? You seem to be confusing limitless play with the ability to play with it at all.
Not at all. You seem to be confusing 'frustration-inducing' and 'paywall' with play.
The word play means that the game has been made to enjoy, not to induce a headache where the aspirin can only be obtained by plonking down cash. It is deceptive, immoral and a lie. Hopefully the rest of the world follows EU's suite, and this plague of "Free to Play" games will be history.
And that's really all I have to say on the subject. If you don't get it, well, I suppose you are entitles to your opinion.
Google will cease to advertise games as "free" when they include in-app purchases and that it will also require payment verification before each purchase.
This line confused me a little. Because a game that costs no money to acquire and play, but allows for in game purchases is still free, right?
I don't like a lot of what these free games do and the way they market themselves, but they are still free. Restrictive, limiting, asking for money they might all be, but free.
Hm. Although unrelated, it's starting to feel like the "caution, hot" warnings on coffee.
**Rolls eyes** yes because consumer labeling and protection is always health and safety gone mad. This mentality towards consumer projection is baffling. This is for our benefit and plugs gaps in our laws.
I have some experience with consumer product labeling and advertising regulation in the UK and EU and if someone advertised a physical product or service as "Free" and then used that as merely a shell to try and get you to pay they would fall foul of consumer protection laws. It would be singled out as a con. I HATE the weaseling "Well technically if you wait 7 days and grind the same item every 15 minutes to progress it's technically free" No. It is in no way free. The experience you get as a free player in no way reflects a full experience and is out of line with the word "Free". The term is merely a means to an end to get users to download your store-front. The game makers only make you able to progress at all as a thin fig-leaf against being regulated and brought into line with what everyone else has to do.
Games like cash of clans, Dungeon keeper mobile, the fucking surfs game and Candy Crush take every opportunity to trick, frustrate and cajole the player into paying. We have consumer projection laws for a reason. It's so con-men can't get away with swindling people. These games function in a dishonest way that no other industry or sector would get away with. This is merely the existing spirit of the law catching up to digital products.
I'm not feeling it. As I said in a comment after the one you quoted, if we are talking about a game that locks you out of large portions of the experience without paying and giving you no other options, then yeah, that's a demo and not a free game. But if the game can be reasonably played* without ever paying, then I don't see the problem. Not being able to play for more than an hour a day or having it take twice as long to finish doesn't make the game not free. It can be shitty, poorly made or greedy, but it can still be a free game.
*By reasonable I mean what a person could honestly and properly expect to gain from the experience without paying a cent. So locking the player out of the next level for a week at a time is not reasonable, but only being able to do a level a day would be, for example.
I don't really care if 'you're not feeling it' the reality on the ground is that "Could be free" =/= Free. Giving people lots of hoops to jump through and trying to force them to pay negates their right to call anything 'free'. Consumer projection law already covers instances like this for all other non digital goods. That is one of the best things about manufacturing and trading in Europe; the standards in place are very high. the UK ASA and the EU commission have finally brought the rules and the law into the 21st century and they have given a resounding thumbs down to companies like EA or Zynga or Supercell mislabeling their games.
Perhaps you need to look up consumer projection laws because the pathetic defense of "Well i COULD argue it is free" hasn't help up for decades. Imagine if a company advertised a hair-dyer as 'free' but it cut-out after 20 seconds and demanded £15 or it wouldn't function for the next 24 hours. They wouldn't be allowed under existing rules to practice like that and call their product 'free'. Sure you COULD dry your hair for free with it, i mean it would be difficult but you COULD do it.
Trading law sees through tissue thin defenses like that. You're technicality does not work. You can't get around consumer projection law like that. That's why it exists. "Free to play" is a Euphemism. When you are dealing with customers you can't talk in eupamhsims. It's clear as day under existing laws governing physical goods that, when applied to digital ones, adverting a monetized product as "Free" is illegal. It simply just is.
Things you need to look up:
UK trading standard laws
EU trading standards laws
"The spirit of the law" as well as "The letter of the law" and how that is applied.
The various tests and measures EU and UK law uses to discover if a practice is deceptive or misleading.
I've had experience working within UK and EU directives on products and servicing. I had to learn about them and a working knowledge is essential to any kind of manufacturing and selling operation. There are specific and stringent rules governeing what you can and can't label and labeling something as "FREE" carries with it a whole raft of measures you must live up to as not to be seen to be misleading a customer.
The words you put on a spanner, a washing machine or a video-game are legally tested and constitute legal language. Your product descripition is tantamount to a ontract bewtwen you and the buyer that what you are saying is accuare. Here let me just quote the actual law at you since you don't seem to get it:
"Under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, all products must be 'fit for purpose', be of satisfactory quality and fit its description. This means that your products must fulfill the purpose the customer has been led to expect and the reasons that led them to buy it."
These laws were drawn up before digital products existed. These digital products existed in some kind of wild west outside of this law because they were new. Now they are simply having to abide by the law, which if they were a PHYSICAL product they would have fallen foul of decades ago. Look at my example of the physical product. That would fall foul of almost every part of the law, especially the "Fit for purpose" clause. Digital products must now abide by similar rules.
That's a well constructed argument and you made your point well, but I simply don't agree with you. I think it's just one of those things were people don't see eye to eye. It's not because you didn't make a solid argument, I just don't agree with it.
To me, a free game doesn't really have to do anything. It's free. You don't pay for it, so if you don't like it, you don't play it any more. I don't really see how anyone can care that something given to them for free is not free to play the amount they want of it. That's just me.
It's not what you think is free, it's about what the EU commission and what the labeling and trading laws says can be advertized as 'Free'. It's about labeling. They can still get people to download their games, no one is banning them or attaching warnings to them. As i've explained In painful detail the way you label something and advertise is subject to stringent legal checks. It's a technical function of the law. Yes they are free to download BUT the intent behind you downloading them is to pressure you into buying things. The game may be free to download but the actual play of it encourages and even stresses payment. Free is a powerful and loaded term, in marketing terms it really grabs people's attention and promises something for nothing. Using it as a snag for a model of timers and strong-arming them into micropayments is dishonest.
In the legal terms set out by the rules products must abide by they are saying that they can't be marketed as free, as this is misleading, because once you download the game there is great emphasis from many of these games on making you pay. Disagreeing with it is disagreeing with the entire premise of EU and UK labeling, selling and adverting law. Within their own framework F2P games have revoked their right to be called free.
It is of little consequence that you can download and get limited play for free; The law is recognizing that the intent behind these games is not to give you a free experience. It is to make you pay through in-app purchases. The fact that they have an in-game store that solicits real money is what makes the jump from "Fully free" to "Micro-payment based"
Surely you must see how the definition of "Free" is being eroded when a game like DKM can be listed alongside a game that has no payment model, that is fully 100% free, yet they can both label themselves as "Free". I think it is very important that actual free games are able to stand out. There HAS to be a labeling difference between them because there is a tangible product difference between a micro-paytment games and an actually FREE game.
In the legal world and in the world of consumer protection having confusing distinctions like two games being called "FREE" with one actually being fully free and the other one pushing time-out micro-payments and merely being a vehicle for a real-money store runs counter to what regulators want. it misleads the public.
Even if you just 'disagree' with all the other facts i have put forward you can't deny this: "A micro-transaction based game is different from a game that is completely free and does not include any in game or out-of-game real-money economy"
A game that costs nothing and allows you to play it, but limits your play time each day unless you play it is free and should be labeled as such. Of course the people making it want you to give them money. But you don't have to and you can still play the game for free.
In your argument you stress it is a matter of advertising, but there is no distinction to be made. If a game can be obtained for free and you can play it without paying any money, it's free. I'd rather retain the seller's right to label something accurately, than I would make it harder for someone to suffer through finding out a game they got for free would be easier if they paid for it.
at the end of the day this, disagreement shall we call it, all comes down to how you are defining what the word free means. on the one side you have several regulatory bodies in europe and most of the people in this thread and on the other side you have you.
the thing with words in law, and to the same extent medicine, is you cant have ambiguity in what things mean. one word for one thing so there is no wiggle room no chance to be misled or deceived.
to go back to the last point made by monkey, you may persist that they should be able to call themselves free but a micro transaction based game is a different beast to a totally free game with no limits on what you can do in any given time frame.
before a game could be called free but with a massive asterisk after it listing all the times it was only kinna free and you had to do x, y and z to be able to play the game in a timely manner.
now they will have to list it differently. it will still give the consumer a clear picture of what it can do in its listing just instead of being listed as free it will be listed as micro transaction based or something along those lines. if anything a more apt description of the game as they were always in a kind of grey area where the title never gave a clear picture of its true nature.
A game that costs nothing and allows you to play it, but limits your play time each day unless you play it is free and should be labeled as such. Of course the people making it want you to give them money. But you don't have to and you can still play the game for free.
In your argument you stress it is a matter of advertising, but there is no distinction to be made. If a game can be obtained for free and you can play it without paying any money, it's free. I'd rather retain the seller's right to label something accurately, than I would make it harder for someone to suffer through finding out a game they got for free would be easier if they paid for it.
I'd say calling these games free is like calling coke a lemon drink.
Just because it includes lemons (trace amounts) and is a drink doesn't quite make it a lemon drink.
Likewise, just because it contains free parts (trace amounts) and is a game doesn't quite make it a free game.
Google will cease to advertise games as "free" when they include in-app purchases and that it will also require payment verification before each purchase.
This line confused me a little. Because a game that costs no money to acquire and play, but allows for in game purchases is still free, right?
I don't like a lot of what these free games do and the way they market themselves, but they are still free. Restrictive, limiting, asking for money they might all be, but free.
Hm. Although unrelated, it's starting to feel like the "caution, hot" warnings on coffee.
Yes they're technically free, but they aren't free in spirit. What Google is doing is separating games that aim to take money directly from users and games that make their money from advertising/are actually completely free and even without ads.
Yea, but they aren't called "Free to Obtain" though, now are they? They are called "Free to Play", which just isn't the case. And before we go in to technicalities, let's define what "play" actually mean:
Play
verb (used without object)
to exercise or employ oneself in diversion, amusement, or recreation.
to do something in sport that is not to be taken seriously.
to amuse oneself; toy; trifle (often followed by with).
to take part or engage in a game.
to take part in a game for stakes; gamble.
And, most (not all) "free to play" games seems to be quite far of the mark in most applicable descriptions of the word without putting in at least some money. Either way, you void one of the definitions: Free if you pay or Play if you don't.
By your definition, then Zork isn't a game, and the creators should be sued for selling it as one. "Play" is a purely subjective term, and whether you like it or not, DKM (and other games like it) has plenty of gameplay.
Scrumpmonkey said:
The game may be free to download but the actual play of it encourages and even stresses payment.
Wrong. The game brings it up once, and then pretty much never mentions it again outside of the option just being there. If you consider the mere option to spend money as "stressing", then that's on you. I have no problem playing these games without giving a second glance to the payment options unless I find something that's at least vaguely intriguing. Sometimes I decide that the game is worth tossing a few bucks, usually I don't; my ability to play and enjoy the games is rarely effected either way.
Oh, and here's the big twist: Dungeon Keeper isn't even the most intrusive of these games about "forcing" you to pay. There's plenty of games that full-on roadblock you until you pay to unlock the rest of the content[footnote]And I would still argue that they're right to advertise as "free to play" as long as the games are free up to that point.[/footnote]. Meanwhile you can get into Dungeon Keeper's endgame perfectly fine without spending a single cent. Heck, Dungeon Keeper doesn't even force you to watch ads to continue playing, something that games which have gotten nothing but praise do!
Okay, since some of you non-Europeans don't seem to get how these are marked:
The apple app-store already marks these "Free to play, but not really, gimme your money!" games.
It says "Free download with in-app purchases" And adds a list of all in-game purchases with a description before you download it, so you can see if it's worth it.
Wrong. The game brings it up once, and then pretty much never mentions it again outside of the option just being there. If you consider the mere option to spend money as "stressing", then that's on you. I have no problem playing these games without giving a second glance to the payment options unless I find something that's at least vaguely intriguing. Sometimes I decide that the game is worth tossing a few bucks, usually I don't; my ability to play and enjoy the games is rarely effected either way.
Oh, and here's the big twist: Dungeon Keeper isn't even the most intrusive of these games about "forcing" you to pay. There's plenty of games that full-on roadblock you until you pay to unlock the rest of the content. Meanwhile you can get into Dungeon Keeper's endgame perfectly fine without spending a single cent. Heck, Dungeon Keeper doesn't even force you to watch ads to continue playing, something that games which have gotten nothing but praise do!
I was talking about Free to Wait games in general. Plenty of people have made very valid points as to why you are wrong. Even official bodies like the UK ASA and now the EU commission.
Your point is becoming less and less tenable as more and more regulators come out against these practices.
No, I agree with him. The game is free to play, it is marketed as fre-to-play. I think one of the games I have recently put more hours in than anything else is World of Tanks, and as yet have not invested a cent in. Although I may make a cosmetic purchase or two just out of support to the developers, this game has been entirely free to play.
For someone that wants to play for maybe 15 minutes a day on public transport on the way to work, then a game whose only restriction is time would be perfect and, again, entirely free.
The fact is that 100 percent of the game content can be accessed without paying for anything, and that the ones I've encountered have non intrusive advertising for the transaction elements.
I'd say EU law is not the final say in an argument of the spirit of false advertising, and using it as an argument tool could easily be countered by finding somewhere else in the world that has a different litigatory view as back up.
Either way, whether or not the European Union says it can be marketed as such, for me these are still free games with optional transactions for the most part.
I find the fact that you say seller of a free product hilarious.
Also the games aren't free. See Hagi's post.
Hagi said:
I'd say calling these games free is like calling coke a lemon drink.
Just because it includes lemons (trace amounts) and is a drink doesn't quite make it a lemon drink.
Likewise, just because it contains free parts (trace amounts) and is a game doesn't quite make it a free game.
That game had so much potential. I own the Collector's Edition, which is something I quite regret.
First they tore out a lot of their actual interesting ideas during development, because focus-testing said the game needed to be more like World of Warcraft, at the expense of it actually being like the Knights of the Old Republic games.
Then they failed to keep the game updated with new content; especially of the story-focused kind which was the point of the game.
Then they went Free To Play, which meant that most of the new content (such as armor that actually looked decent) ended up stuffed into the equivalent of trading card booster packs, or even sold completely separately from the game's new digital currency (like the first DLC expansion). Even the most loyal of subscribers could only got to a tiny fraction of the content without paying up or spending their days grinding credits to buy the stuff from other players who were more willing to cough up the dough.
And then we can get into how EA apparently didn't understand the concept of microtransactions, as they charged the equivalent of a 30-day subscription for a single rather generic-looking set of armor. Macrotransaction is a more apt term.
Eventually I just had enough and stopped playing. I don't need a game that asks me to choose between paying out of my ass or treating content-unlocks like a full-time job.
Which again proves nothing. You need evidence outside of "other people agree with me", because guess what, other people agree with me, too. Oh, and no, the level of authority behind the people who agree with you doesn't mean squat. Authority doesn't make them right, it just gives them the power to do what they're going to do. Lord knows that people in power have never been wrong, either.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
