"Free-To-Play" Games Face Tougher Regulation In Europe

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
1
0
"Free-To-Play" Games Face Tougher Regulation In Europe


The European Commission is meeting with member states and technology companies to come up with more stringent protections for consumers who use free-to-play games.

It's no great secret that free-to-play games generally are not, in fact, free. Some are fairly gentle, allowing users to pay for personalization or "convenience" items that don't directly affect gameplay, but a great many of them place significant obstacles in the paths of gamers who don't want to pony up. It's a simple formula: If you want to play the game "properly," you're going to have to take out your wallet.

It's that bait-and-switch approach that has attracted the attention of the European Commission, the executive body of the European Union. "At present over 50 percent of the EU online games market consists of games advertised as 'free,' although they often entail, sometimes costly, in-app purchases," it said in a press release. "Often consumers are not fully aware that they are spending money because their credit cards get charged by default. Children are particularly vulnerable to marketing of 'free to download' games which are not 'free to play'."

To address the issue, the EC is holding meetings with "national enforcement agencies and large tech companies" including Google and Apple to discuss creating "proper consumer protection for apps customers." The discussions will focus on four particular issues:


Games advertised as "free" should not mislead consumers about the true costs involved
Games should not contain direct exhortations to children to buy items in a game or to persuade an adult to buy items for them
Consumers should be adequately informed about the payment arrangements and purchases should not be debited through default settings without consumers' explicit consent
Traders should provide an email address so that consumers can contact them in case of queries or complaints


"Europe's app industry has enormous potential, both to generate jobs and growth, and to improve our daily lives through innovative technology. For the sector to deliver on its potential consumers must have confidence in new products," EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding said. "Misleading consumers is clearly the wrong business model and also goes against the spirit of EU rules on consumer protection. The European Commission will expect very concrete answers from the app industry to the concerns raised by citizens and national consumer organizations."

The EC said the meetings will provide an opportunity for all parties to reach a "common understanding" on the matter, and that it would continue to follow up in conjunction with individual enforcement authorities as necessary.

Source: Europa [http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-187_en.htm]


Permalink
 

Falterfire

New member
Jul 9, 2012
810
0
0
Although I in general agree with what they're trying to achieve here, I do take issue with one specific point:

Games should not contain direct exhortations to children to buy items in a game or to persuade an adult to buy items for them
This seems like a really difficult specification to comply with since there are quite a few games that are played by both children and adults. Does this mean that before advertising anything they have to put in an age gate? Or does this just mean "Hey, buy this" is okay but "Hey kids, buy this" is not?

Because unless they just want to kill every single free to play game or force the in game ads to sound like a stereotypical anime girlfriend (It's not like I wanted you to buy anything anyways!) I'm not sure how you avoid getting hit with the claim that you were suggesting a purchase in a way a child would see it.
 

Neurotic Void Melody

Bound to escape
Legacy
Jul 15, 2013
4,953
6
13
Hmmm...I wonder how this will affect future EA and Molyneux statements. I am honestly interested.

What about the games you pay full price for but have to pay extra to have the "full experience"? *cough* Dead space 3, AC3 and 4, Battlefields, dragon age, NFS most wanted *cough*

Ahem
 

gigastar

Insert one-liner here.
Sep 13, 2010
4,419
0
0
Falterfire said:
Although I in general agree with what they're trying to achieve here, I do take issue with one specific point:

Games should not contain direct exhortations to children to buy items in a game or to persuade an adult to buy items for them
This seems like a really difficult specification to comply with since there are quite a few games that are played by both children and adults. Does this mean that before advertising anything they have to put in an age gate? Or does this just mean "Hey, buy this" is okay but "Hey kids, buy this" is not?
While it says children i suppose it actually references any ingame popups that encourage the "players" to buy the premium currency.
 

grey_space

Magnetic Mutant
Apr 16, 2012
455
0
0
I'll mock the EU at length at times but fair play to them for this.

Hopefully it will at least make the worst perpetrators pause.
 

hickwarrior

a samurai... devil summoner?
Nov 7, 2007
429
0
0
gigastar said:
Falterfire said:
Although I in general agree with what they're trying to achieve here, I do take issue with one specific point:

Games should not contain direct exhortations to children to buy items in a game or to persuade an adult to buy items for them
This seems like a really difficult specification to comply with since there are quite a few games that are played by both children and adults. Does this mean that before advertising anything they have to put in an age gate? Or does this just mean "Hey, buy this" is okay but "Hey kids, buy this" is not?
While it says children i suppose it actually references any ingame popups that encourage the "players" to buy the premium currency.
So that just goes back to his point, right? They can't advertise that you can buy stuff in-game. That should be allowed, so people know where to go to get it. Maybe they should warn that yes this is real money you're using for it. Which is on the same level as warning people not to put their dogs in the microwave.
 

Sofus

New member
Apr 15, 2011
223
0
0
Falterfire said:
Although I in general agree with what they're trying to achieve here, I do take issue with one specific point:

Games should not contain direct exhortations to children to buy items in a game or to persuade an adult to buy items for them
This seems like a really difficult specification to comply with since there are quite a few games that are played by both children and adults. Does this mean that before advertising anything they have to put in an age gate? Or does this just mean "Hey, buy this" is okay but "Hey kids, buy this" is not?

Because unless they just want to kill every single free to play game or force the in game ads to sound like a stereotypical anime girlfriend (It's not like I wanted you to buy anything anyways!) I'm not sure how you avoid getting hit with the claim that you were suggesting a purchase in a way a child would see it.
It may come to that, but I think (hope) they just want to kill stuff such as Dungeon Keeper Mobil or Facebook games. In-game obstacles that can be circumvented (even partly) with the use of money should never be encountered.

I'm okay with developers selling things that don't alter the gameplay, but I would honestly rather pay a fixed price for a game than encounter some paywall.

Either that or they should just call it Free to Pay instead.
 

Falterfire

New member
Jul 9, 2012
810
0
0
Sofus said:
I'm okay with developers selling things that don't alter the gameplay, but I would honestly rather pay 60 euro for a game than encounter some immersion breaking paywall.
I kinda disagree, but it depends on the sort of game - In a single player game where I don't care at all about cosmetics, I'm okay with the things you pay for being level packs or new stuff that does affect gameplay, provided the free portions are balanced in such a way that the money isn't necessary. I'm not going to pay them $5 for a hat in a single player game, but I will pay $5 to get access to more content.

Multiplayer games are different though, just because it's so difficult to balance stuff to begin with and you don't want to have a situation where the guy with the $5 gun is always better than the guy with the free gun. Plus there are other people to look at the shiny so cosmetics feel more valuable (Even if the other player's don't care).

I suppose that still comes down to personal preference though, especially the single player bit.
 

Colt47

New member
Oct 31, 2012
1,065
0
0
I definitely agree with the initiative being pursued by the lawmakers, even if it is going to have to go through some draft work to be specific enough to not step on the wrong toes. There is a lot of ethical problems with the sales practices exhibited in games like Star Trek Trixels and Dungeon Keeper Mobile.
 

Muspelheim

New member
Apr 7, 2011
2,023
0
0
Holy Christ, the EC doing something that benefits someone else than the ridiculously wealthy establishment. That explain that squadron of pigs flying past the window.

(I'm being a bit mean, the EC is not as useless as it sounds, and these are honestly very good news as far as quality control is concerned.)
 

wizzy555

New member
Oct 14, 2010
637
0
0
OK so this time the EU is wading in causing everyone to change everything for a soon to be obsolete reason 5 years too late as oppose to 10 years too late as they did with internet cookies.

At least they are improving.
 

Sanunes

Senior Member
Mar 18, 2011
626
0
21
Scrumpmonkey said:
The EU will also hopefully take action on the larger problem of microtransactions and premium currencies. If they could legislate that in app purchases need to be shown in how much REAL money they cost and not just gems or gold coins etc that would go a long way towards giving consumers a better frame of reference.

A digital item is digital goods; Digital games, DLC and micro-purchases should have a refund policy like everything else does.

Unfortunately the wheels of EA law tend to move at a glacial pace and since this is only in the consultation phase this could be many years in the pipeline.
I think the problem is more directed to what iOS/Android games are doing, for I find they are a lot more predatory then a PC/Console game. In the PC/Console front I find EA is actually trying to give customers more support for their return policy on digital sales on Origin to me is fair and I have used it with Battlefield 4. I think it might expand to DLC if they can figure a way to track how much of the content was consumed by the player, for I fine with them not wanting to give a refund if someone played the entire DLC.
 

Karadalis

New member
Apr 26, 2011
1,065
0
0
Falterfire said:
Although I in general agree with what they're trying to achieve here, I do take issue with one specific point:

Games should not contain direct exhortations to children to buy items in a game or to persuade an adult to buy items for them
This seems like a really difficult specification to comply with since there are quite a few games that are played by both children and adults. Does this mean that before advertising anything they have to put in an age gate? Or does this just mean "Hey, buy this" is okay but "Hey kids, buy this" is not?

Because unless they just want to kill every single free to play game or force the in game ads to sound like a stereotypical anime girlfriend (It's not like I wanted you to buy anything anyways!) I'm not sure how you avoid getting hit with the claim that you were suggesting a purchase in a way a child would see it.
It means that they are not allowed to lay "traps" for kids so to speak. They have to make it very clear to both the kid and the adult that real money is involved.

This whole article seems to be focused alot more on the app market for iphones and other mobile devices where such scummy tactics seem to run rampant.

I have yet to see a f2p MMO for PC or Console charge your credit card without explicitly telling you that youre actually paying money for whatever premium stuff youre getting. (However i dont doubt that they might exist out there)

Apps on the other hand.. there seem to be alot that ask for your credit card info and people (or kids that snagged their parents credit cards) are gullible enough to enter it... and then wonder why the hell their credit card gets billed so much.

Reason that its such a problem on the app market? They are piss easy to produce (flappy bird for example) so every shady figure out to make a quick buck has jumped on the bandwagon.
 

Owyn_Merrilin

New member
May 22, 2010
7,370
0
0
gigastar said:
Falterfire said:
Although I in general agree with what they're trying to achieve here, I do take issue with one specific point:

Games should not contain direct exhortations to children to buy items in a game or to persuade an adult to buy items for them
This seems like a really difficult specification to comply with since there are quite a few games that are played by both children and adults. Does this mean that before advertising anything they have to put in an age gate? Or does this just mean "Hey, buy this" is okay but "Hey kids, buy this" is not?
While it says children i suppose it actually references any ingame popups that encourage the "players" to buy the premium currency.
It might, but I wonder if this has less to do with European regulators still thinking all gamers are children, and more to do with things like the Smurf Berry fiasco, where a game clearly marketed towards children had in app purchases that didn't make it especially clear involved real money. Apple actually changed the way linking credit cards to the App Store worked to make it harder for small children to accidentally rack up multi-thousand dollar credit card bills on their parents' phones because of that incident.
 

TallanKhan

New member
Aug 13, 2009
790
0
0
My heart always sinks when i read about regulation. Now let me be clear, I am not opposed to what they are trying to achieve, I just don't think it is an effective or well thought out approach. In my opinion the law is at it's best when it is simple, i.e. it draws a clear dividing line between right and wrong. In instances of micro-regulation such as this it only serves to clutter the production process with bureaucracy which ultimately drives up development costs and in the end only serves as a real barrier to small developers who might want to use a f-2-p title as their first foray into commercial games development. Large scale producers such as King, with armies of lawyers, are always miles ahead of this kind of move, and are always ready to sidestep such measures through legal loopholes or outright obscurification of practice.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
To be honest with you, I've been hoping the US would get on board with some things like this. I'd also like to see the government crack down on online gambling through MMOs and the like. In general it seems like more and more MMOs are embracing an asia-inspired "chance box" system where when they add new content to the game, anything worth having is put in as the prize in a random number generator, and you basically wind up paying $1 or more for every chance at taking a spin. Oftentimes dressed up as a lockbox dropping as loot, but which you require a key bought for real money in order to open. It was cute the first time I saw it, and I figure "ah well, they need to make money somehow, new expansions are expensive and a raffle to raise money with online prizes is no big thing" but now it's continuous and I have a hard time finding ANY games that don't participate in this nonsense. I mean it's one thing to sell someone an item outright but when you want people in an MMO to gamble for it? I did it myself before I realized how obnoxious it was going to get, but I'm increasingly getting to the point where they can pretty much fuck right off with it since I see games that don't seem to be having any real financial problems in funding their content doing it (yes Cryptic, I love your games, I've bought keys from you, but your going too far with it now).

Now you can say that this isn't real gambling, but I have to say the line is blurred when you can exchange in-game currencies for real money (whether the company supports it or not). To put things into perspective in a game like say Neverwinter the cost of Astral Diamonds per Zen is roughly at a rate of 350 to 1 (though it fluctuates). You buy 1000 Zen for $10, so your looking at 350000 Astral Diamonds roughly having a value of about $10. There are sites out there that sell Astral Diamonds for real money, they will generally buy them for about half that and then sell for 75% to undercut the value. Similar breakdowns can happen with the dilithium exchange in Star Trek Online, but get more complicated because unlike Neverwinter items can be sold via their exchange for Energy Credits as well, which means another non-premium currency gets involved. The thing is that some of these very rare items wind up having what amounts to a real world value, because they can be reliably exchanged for millions upon millions of Astral Diamonds, which have a value based on the value of the premium currency, which can in turn be traded to farmers for real cash. Depending on the drop rate of an item, you have people already figuring out how many boxes on average a person is likely to need to open before it becomes profitable based on the exchange rates, not to mention the timing of things based on the market and wanting to sell big ticket items while there are still relatively few of them in circulation to get the best possible deal in order to exchange it for real money (with the diamonds them resold by the diamond seller for real
money at a somewhat higher rate, and ultimately taking most of the risk).... so basically it becomes akin to real gambling and a real business which has very real effects on the game. Albeit in Neverwinter in particular this problem manifests in other ways as well, if an artifact called "Shard Of Valindra's Crown" drops it's previously held prices akin to $200 worth of ADs which means you could turn it into half that much in real money easily. Needless to say it's lead to a lot of drama with people getting kicked from groups so they couldn't roll on it and such. It's also why I have yet to run Valindra's Castle, I'd like to, but as I typically PUG (as a tank, as opposed to a mage which is odd for me) the horror stories have generally kept me away.

The point here is that it's nice to see the UK looking into online games and real money, and truthfully I think other countries need to do the same, but at the same time they ALSO need to broaden things as well. I'm mostly mentioning this because while I spend a decent chunk of money on FTP games, it would take me months to spend $300, but I've actually run into a couple of people spending that much on keys not because they could afford it for fun, or because they wanted some extra-cool ship to play with (you know, like the biggest fan of Voyager's Voth in the world, who must have the ship set, already having made a custom alien a year ago to look just like one... this being like the ultimate climax of his personal fandom... STO in particular has people like this, and it's not what I'm talking about) but because they fell behind playing the exchange game and are hoping for some luck with rare items to catch up and make their money back or at least break even... just like a real gambler. This is by the way why on some exchanges you'll see one particular character at times apparently selling 10 of the ultimate lockbox prize (although in some cases that's some dude buying out the lower priced ones to try and corner the market... playing MMORPG markets and decimating their economies is annoying, but not something for RL legal action).