Dungeon Keeper Ads Misleading, Concludes UK Advertising Watchdog

[MarlaDesat]

Dungeon Keeper Ads Misleading, Concludes UK Advertising Watchdog

The UK's Advertising Standards Authority has ruled that EA's marketing for the free-to-play title failed to make clear how timing mechanics severely limited gameplay without in-app purchases.

A complaint against Electronics Arts over its advertising for the free-to-play Dungeon Keeper [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/8773-Free-To-Wait] mobile game has been upheld by the UK's independent advertising regulator, the Advertising Standards Authority. The complaint argued that an email marketing campaign that advertised the free game was misleading because it did not make clear that "gameplay was severely limited unless in-app purchases were made." The ASA has ruled that in future advertisements, EA must make clear the limits put on free gameplay and the role of in-app purchases in the game, particularly when it comes to speeding up gameplay.

EA argued against the complaint, stating that players were not required to purchase the in-app currency Gems in order to progress, and that all players could earn Gems through in-game events. The ruling says, "[EA] stated that the average player would expect a free-to-play title to be monetised with countdown timers and premium currency [...] [EA] stated their belief that the mechanics of Dungeon Keeper were well within the average length and frequency for the market and that players of combat simulators would therefore reasonably expect them." EA also argued that the timers provided a sense of progression and resource management, and that even without the monetisation, the game will still have a timing mechanism. In the ruling, the ASA concludes, "The nature of the timer frequency and length in Dungeon Keeper, in combination with the way it was monetised, was likely to create a game experience for non-spenders that did not reflect their reasonable expectations from the content of the ad. Because the game had the potential to restrict gameplay beyond that which would be expected by consumers and the ad did not make this aspect of the role of in-app purchasing clear, we concluded that it was misleading." The contested ad described the game as free, but did not mention in-app purchases.

Andrew Wilson, CEO of EA, told Eurogamer in an interview in June that the company original EA ad [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/135710-Cash-Grab-Dungeon-Keeper-Was-Wrong-Admits-EA-CEO].


Source: Games Industry [http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2014/7/Electronic-Arts-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_258907.aspx#.U7WysvldWSr]


Permalink

 

[JarinArenos]

"For new players, it was kind of a cool game," Wilson said. "For people who'd grown up playing Dungeon Keeper there was a disconnect there. In that aspect we didn't walk that line as well as we could have. And that's a shame."

This is the biggest line of BS I've read in a while... okay, a depressingly short while, but still. 'misjudged the economy" might as well be translated as "didn't test game with any accounts that didn't have infinite gems". As for new players finding it cool... I heard not a single positive review.

 

[mjharper]

Pwned.

More seriously, this is a good thing, although I completely expect to see some BS spin on the ruling, such as 'Gameplay may be enhanced by totally optional in-app purchases.'

 

[CriticalMiss]

"For new players, it was kind of a cool game," Wilson said. "For people who'd grown up playing Dungeon Keeper there was a disconnect there. In that aspect we didn't walk that line as well as we could have. And that's a shame."

This is the biggest line of BS I've read in a while... okay, a depressingly short while, but still. 'misjudged the economy" might as well be translated as "didn't test game with any accounts that didn't have infinite gems". As for new players finding it cool... I heard not a single positive review.

Not only are there positive reviews, someone actually gave it an 80/100 according to everyone's favourite review site Metacritic.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/ios/dungeon-keeper

Just ignore the small number of negative reviews. Just the vocal minori...majority. Um. *jumps out of window*

EA argued against the complaint, stating that players were not required to purchase the in-app currency Gems in order to progress

In-app purchases aren't required, the game is just heavily balanced against you without them.

[EA] stated that the average player would expect a free-to-play title to be monetised with countdown timers and premium currency

Well of course they would. If bullies steal your milk money every day you start to expect that bullies stealing your milk money is the norm. That doesn't make it right.

 

[90sgamer]

I dislike EA as much as the next guy, but this issue is ridiculous and serves only as yet another good example of how the UK has become, or is becoming, a nanny-state. THE GAME IS FREE. Regulation of advertisements is to prevent consumers from falling victim to fraud. How do you defraud somebody when you give them something in return for nothing? If EA was charging money for the game and then pulling a bait and switch, then there would be a need for regulation to insure honest advertisement.

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

"For new players, it was kind of a cool game," Wilson said. "For people who'd grown up playing Dungeon Keeper there was a disconnect there. In that aspect we didn't walk that line as well as we could have. And that's a shame."

This is the biggest line of BS I've read in a while... okay, a depressingly short while, but still. 'misjudged the economy" might as well be translated as "didn't test game with any accounts that didn't have infinite gems". As for new players finding it cool... I heard not a single positive review.

There are plenty of positive reviews. The game even had (possibly still does have) a fairly decent community revolving around it that varies between the hardcore players and the relatively-casual players. After spending a little time there, it was actually pretty easy to forget just how toxic the generally gaming community is towards anything new and different in way that doesn't agree with the way they prefer to play games.

 

[Burchy22]

I dislike EA as much as the next guy, but this issue is ridiculous and serves only as yet another good example of how the UK has become, or is becoming, a nanny-state. THE GAME IS FREE. Regulation of advertisements is to prevent consumers from falling victim to fraud. How do you defraud somebody when you give them something in return for nothing? If EA was charging money for the game and then pulling a bait and switch, then there would be a need for regulation to insure honest advertisement.

I like that our legal system is calling out the game industry on stuff like this, it shows that actually some parts of the law are on our side and keeping companies like EA in check. UK isn't as strict as Australia with their ban restrictions and then you have the US condemning gaming as the reason for all crime in the world ever.

 

[gamegod25]

It's misleading in that it leads you to to believe it's a game.

 

[The Wykydtron]

I dislike EA as much as the next guy, but this issue is ridiculous and serves only as yet another good example of how the UK has become, or is becoming, a nanny-state. THE GAME IS FREE. Regulation of advertisements is to prevent consumers from falling victim to fraud. How do you defraud somebody when you give them something in return for nothing? If EA was charging money for the game and then pulling a bait and switch, then there would be a need for regulation to insure honest advertisement.

So? The game is also a pile 'a wank, just because something is free doesn't automatically excuse it from misleading advertisement hiding shitty game mechanics. "Free" or no, fraud is fraud. I suppose it's time to bring up good old Sale of Goods Act 1979 that clearly states that heavily misleading advertising is illegal, regardless of what the advertisement is for, god forbid they actually enforce a law that's been around for ages. The act isn't *just* for fraud, it's so people know what the fuck they're even buying. 'S not hard to understand why an advertising watchdog would be concerned.

 

[Tanis]

Why is it Europe seems to be more FREE than the USA?

My country REWARDS companies for being jerks, while most European nations PUNISH them.

>_>

 

[JCAll]

I like that EA admits that people didn't get their money's worth...for a free game.

 

[JarinArenos]

The game even had (possibly still does have) a fairly decent community revolving around it that varies between the hardcore players and the relatively-casual players. After spending a little time there, it was actually pretty easy to forget just how toxic the generally gaming community is towards anything new and different in way that doesn't agree with the way they prefer to play games.

I've noticed this being a pattern among mobile game communities, actually. I've found myself wishing PC gaming could import more of that player attitude, while leaving the game economics behind. .. and yes, I'll admit I'm sometimes in the problem category myself. I do restrict myself to venting at the bad business practices though, rather than my fellow gamers.

 

[SkyMarshall]

This game was an absolute abomination, so this is very deserved indeed. Well done ASA.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

Chalk up another 1 for the consumer ladies and gents.

I dislike EA as much as the next guy, but this issue is ridiculous and serves only as yet another good example of how the UK has become, or is becoming, a nanny-state. THE GAME IS FREE. Regulation of advertisements is to prevent consumers from falling victim to fraud. How do you defraud somebody when you give them something in return for nothing? If EA was charging money for the game and then pulling a bait and switch, then there would be a need for regulation to insure honest advertisement.

I kind of agree, but examples must be set with this kind of thing. EA and other companies need to realise how far they can go with their restrictions on "Free to play" games. Or at least advertise them more accurately.

 

[SirAroun]

"For new players, it was kind of a cool game," Wilson said. "For people who'd grown up playing Dungeon Keeper there was a disconnect there. In that aspect we didn't walk that line as well as we could have. And that's a shame."

This is the biggest line of BS I've read in a while... okay, a depressingly short while, but still. 'misjudged the economy" might as well be translated as "didn't test game with any accounts that didn't have infinite gems". As for new players finding it cool... I heard not a single positive review.

Not only are there positive reviews, someone actually gave it an 80/100 according to everyone's favourite review site Metacritic.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/ios/dungeon-keeper

Just ignore the small number of negative reviews. Just the vocal minori...majority. Um. *jumps out of window*

No in fact most of the Reviews were rigged
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-02-10-ea-filtering-out-less-than-5-star-reviews-of-dungeon-keeper-on-android

 

[youji itami]

I dislike EA as much as the next guy, but this issue is ridiculous and serves only as yet another good example of how the UK has become, or is becoming, a nanny-state. THE GAME IS FREE. Regulation of advertisements is to prevent consumers from falling victim to fraud. How do you defraud somebody when you give them something in return for nothing? If EA was charging money for the game and then pulling a bait and switch, then there would be a need for regulation to insure honest advertisement.

The ASA is nothing to do with the government it's run by advertising firms so that the government does not need to monitor adverts.

When advertisers think your advert is full of shit what does that say about your ad!

Also a F2P game isn't free if it's full of 24 hour cooldown timers.
.

 

[RandV80]

"[EA] stated that the average player would expect a free-to-play title to be monetised with countdown timers and premium currency [...] [EA] stated their belief that the mechanics of Dungeon Keeper were well within the average length and frequency for the market and that players of combat simulators would therefore reasonably expect them."

This has less to do with the case and more about the game in general, but while that may be true with 'combat simulators' some younger/mobile gamers may not realize it but those types of games have been out for a long time, well before the FTP model came about. I forget the website, but back in the late 90's I spent time with two browser based war games, I believe Earth 2025 and Utopia. There was no graphics interface, but it was the same deal. You build up your buildings/army, attack other players to steal land, and lose land when others attack you. Earth utilized a 'turns' style, where every day you recieved a set amount of turns used to build buildings, claim land, and launch attacks. You would basically log in every day, spend 20 minutes making your turns, and that was it. Utopia was a fantasy version that came later and was a little more involved, you were sorted into 'kingdoms' with other players and had to work together, and when you 'attacked' your army would leave and you wouldn't know the results for a set amount of hours.

So yeah, basically predecessors for all the modern 'combat simulator' games, except it was an actual free game and you couldn't spend money to 'speed up'. The point I'm getting at it these games had an existing core with a 'wait' mechanic that worked as a game before the mobile/Facebook scene started and more shrewd business people figured out you could get people to pay you to speed things up. Why the hell did EA think they could just take a PC strategy game and cram in the same mechanics?

 

[90sgamer]

I dislike EA as much as the next guy, but this issue is ridiculous and serves only as yet another good example of how the UK has become, or is becoming, a nanny-state. THE GAME IS FREE. Regulation of advertisements is to prevent consumers from falling victim to fraud. How do you defraud somebody when you give them something in return for nothing? If EA was charging money for the game and then pulling a bait and switch, then there would be a need for regulation to insure honest advertisement.

The ASA is nothing to do with the government it's run by advertising firms so that the government does not need to monitor adverts.

When advertisers think your advert is full of shit what does that say about your ad!

Also a F2P game isn't free if it's full of 24 hour cooldown timers.
.

It's a private agency? Did this editorial indicate that? I must have missed it. OK, UK, you are forgiven. For now.

 

[90sgamer]

I dislike EA as much as the next guy, but this issue is ridiculous and serves only as yet another good example of how the UK has become, or is becoming, a nanny-state. THE GAME IS FREE. Regulation of advertisements is to prevent consumers from falling victim to fraud. How do you defraud somebody when you give them something in return for nothing? If EA was charging money for the game and then pulling a bait and switch, then there would be a need for regulation to insure honest advertisement.

So? The game is also a pile 'a wank, just because something is free doesn't automatically excuse it from misleading advertisement hiding shitty game mechanics. "Free" or no, fraud is fraud. I suppose it's time to bring up good old Sale of Goods Act 1979 that clearly states that heavily misleading advertising is illegal, regardless of what the advertisement is for, god forbid they actually enforce a law that's been around for ages. The act isn't *just* for fraud, it's so people know what the fuck they're even buying. 'S not hard to understand why an advertising watchdog would be concerned.

My comment was based on the assumption that this article was naming an actual government entity. I'm informed since then that's it's actually just a private company reviewing ads. Thankfully, no regulation involved. Anyway, any definition of fraud requires the victim to have been harmed in some way (hard = some kind of loss, such as money). When you download a game for free, it's shit, and you sue for fraud, what damages are you going to allege to fulfill the element of "harm"?

It seriously isn't fraud. Just shitty business practices.