Google Europe to End Calling Microtransaction Titles "Free"

[Steven Bogos]

Google Europe to End Calling Microtransaction Titles "Free"

Google Play games that have in-app purchases will now also require payment verification before each purchase.

We've all dealt with the frustration of free games that aren't actually free [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/editorials/reviews/10956-Dungeon-Keeper-Mobile-Review-Wallet-Reaper], and usually pretty much require players to drop some real-world cash in the form of microtransactions in order to make any real progress, and the European Commission feels our pain. The commission has laid out a series of guidelines concerning "free" mobile games, mostly in the interests of protecting children from racking up huge credit-card bills, and Google has happily obliged.

By the end of September, 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. For now, these changes only apply to European versions of the Google Play store, but it may eventually apply to the store's other regional variants.

Apple also agreed to make some changes of its own at the commission's request, but, much to the commission's disapproval, it hasn't agreed to any specific actions or any time line. In defense, it said it already does "more than others" to protect consumers from in-app purchases.

The new guidelines state that games advertised as free should en devour to not mislead consumers about their true costs, that games don't directly ask children to make in-app purchasers, that games make it very clear about how these payments are made, and that games provide an email address that consumers can raise queries with.

"In-app purchases are a legitimate business model," EC vice president Neelie Kroes says, "but it's essential for app-makers to understand and respect EU law while they develop these new business models."

Source: The Verge [http://www.theverge.com/2014/7/18/5915415/google-adding-in-app-purchase-protections-european-commission]

Permalink

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

About frigging time, some of the worst titles don't even deserve to be called games let alone 'free'.

 

[Rufus Shinra]

At least, with Android, you can work out some... alternative solutions to the payment options.

 

[Strazdas]

i am very happy about the need for verification each purchase. my sistem often misclicks on the "special money" items in games and some games are so agressive in trying to sell you then that the only reason she does not end up buying them is because i blocked that access (shes 6, dont have account of her own yet). She understands the concept and know to avoid these items, but they are not always as obviuos as they should be.

capcha(after telling me i entered wrong one): a wild capcha appears!

I think its making fun of me now.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Hopefully this will at least slow the growth of that horrible practice by letting the user identify the honeypot "game" before it's even downloaded.

 

[FalloutJack]

i am very happy about the need for verification each purchase. my sistem often misclicks on the "special money" items in games and some games are so agressive in trying to sell you then that the only reason she does not end up buying them is because i blocked that access (shes 6, dont have account of her own yet). She understands the concept and know to avoid these items, but they are not always as obviuos as they should be.

capcha(after telling me i entered wrong one): a wild capcha appears!

I think its making fun of me now.

Strazzy, one question. How does a game even start charging you without information to siphon currency from?

 

[Frostnatt]

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.

 

[Ark of the Covetor]

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?

Captcha: captcha in the rye

"Here's a game for free. Oh you did everything possible for now? Wait 24 yours of give us some money!"
Yea... Free.

Being a shit game and being made easier or better with money doesn't mean it can't be free, though.

That's not free though. At best, it's a free trial or demo of the actual game, which you can only access by paying money.

 

[Queen Michael]

Halle-fucking-lujah. I hate false marketing.

 

[Rufus Shinra]

At least, with Android, you can work out some... alternative solutions to the payment options.

Android is not a fully closed platform. With the move to functionality more like PCs there is also a movie towards modability. Most F2P games on the PC are multiplayer based and even then the best examples push the model more lightly. Why? Well because of, not really piracy, but content modding. If Dungeon keeper mobile was on the PC people would simply mod the content files to get around the waiting as the game as little or no online functionality beyond being a store front.

Android users are getting more savvy; there are going to be mods and cracks for more and more games with more and more people using them to bypass this crap. The free to wait model only works if you completely eliminate a user's ability to fix your game. Hopefully the balance of power will shift back into the hands of users.

Many people decry this as 'piracy' but when you have content locked off in an artificial way in any sense you open yourself up to being ripped apart.

Yep, this is what I was talking about and what I did with my MLP Android game. Not going to pay dozens of euros for Celestia, thank you very much.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

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.

Unfortunately all to many 'games' don't even meet your standards of playability, let alone most average people.

There is a reason the gambling terminology of 'whales' is creeping into the verancular of these peddlers.

 

[Citizen Graves]

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.

I see your point. I disagree, but I see where you're coming from.

Thing is, as with all good things in life, Google is now putting into motions the consequences that will effect all games, wether their business strategy is fair or not, because some companies just did not want to play fair.

Now all F2P games will suffer because EA and all the other scum could not restrain themselves.