Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

European Union: Stop calling games "free to play" which are not!

12357

Comments

  • asmkm22asmkm22 Member Posts: 1,788
    Originally posted by CazNeerg

    It's amazingly sad that the grasp of the English language in the EU is that poor.  I can't think of one F2P game that can't be played for free.

    EDIT: If they can't see that "to play" is an appropriate qualification, they are the ones lacking in appropriate qualifications.

    I don't think this is about semantics.  It's more about misleading marketing practices.  There are a number of "F2P" games (especially in the mobile industry) that offer such a poor experience when playing for free, that it's misleading to suggest they are such.  The recent Dungeon Keeper game is a good example, where you have to buy gems for a remotely playable experience.

    You make me like charity

  • AmanaAmana Moderator UncommonPosts: 3,912
    Guys, keep this to gaming and not politics/ethical issues or a 'who's better' contest. It's getting away from the topic at hand.

    To give feedback on moderation, contact [email protected]

  • ReklawReklaw Member UncommonPosts: 6,495
    Originally posted by RealmLordsKen

    This will be interesting to watch.  Good post, thanks.

     

    May I ask what's good about the OP's post?

    It seems to be posted in a MMO dedicated section. Yet the article was about App(s)

    Or did I misread the article?

  • MurlockDanceMurlockDance Member Posts: 1,223
    Originally posted by CazNeerg
    They aren't marketed as "Free to Play Everything," only as "Free to Play."  If a restaurant had marketing that said "Free to Eat" that would simply mean that if you showed up wanting free food, they would have to give you something.  It doesn't mean they have to give you anything on the menu, because as long as they give you something that is technically food they have fulfilled the letter of their promise.

    I would argue that play is already defined.  It means you are able to engage in activities in a game.  If there are activities that can be experienced without paying anything, then the game is Free to Play.

    This is great if you are an adult who has world experience, knows the value of money, the sorts of wording in advertizements used and what they are really saying, etc. However, this discussion is actually not about adults as much as it is about kids. Yes, parents should discuss this with their kids if they reach a certain maturity level, but still money is not usually really fully understood until the kid hits teenage years. The problem is that phone and tablet apps that are the main target of this discussion are marketed for young children who do not have all of these self-defense mechanisms.

    Customers do have access to the relevant information.  Anybody who has two brain cells to rub together already understands that Free to Play doesn't mean that everything about the product is completely free, there is no need for any labeling changes.
    I am sure that a lot of time-starved parents don't really have the time to look up every single new phone app game that comes out to make sure they are free, especially if both parents work and there are so many games on offer now. I do not think that requiring game companies to be upfront about costs is a bad thing. It will help parents police what their kids are doing more easily. The game companies should have auto-regulated, but they didn't and because of quite a few nasty cases, and a class-action lawsuit brought against Apple and Google, the EU is deciding to step in to make sure that things are properly advertized. This is not a bad thing! It would be great, I am sure, for us to live in a world where parents have unlimited time to check everything out and make sure that their kids can't use their credit cards, but we don't live in such a world unfortunately.

    So, do a lot of your relatives who have trouble logging into computers play F2P games and "accidentally" spend money in them?  They accidentally enter their credit card information?  They accidentally click "buy" or "purchase" buttons?  

    The only people who can't figure out that F2P doesn't mean the same thing as Free are people who are too stupid to protect, no matter how much you try they will find a way to waste their money, so all attempting to protect them from the consequences of their mental deficiency accomplishes is a lot of wasted time, effort, and resources.

    I guess children are too stupid to protect...

    Some of it is indeed lack of common sense. I do not think parents should go out and get smartphones or tablets for their kids under a certain age, period. A normal mobile phone is plenty enough for a wee one until they hit an age where they understand about budgeting money and not throwing lots of it on stupid games.

    However I can also see that smartphones are pretty new and are in full evolution especially with the game apps that are available, so I think it is easy for parents to get caught off-guard, especially if they are not fully tech-savvy or do not keep up with all of the novelties in the appstores. One of the common complaints that I have read and heard is that parents had no idea that there were hidden costs or that their kids could bypass the normal safety measures to keep them from being able to make purchases on their parents' credit cards.

    I do not think that MMORPGs are really that interesting to the EU Commission in this light because the mainstay of this genre is fully old enough to understand the meaning of F2A/B2P/P2P. It might still get rounded up in the safety net being thrown out though because it is still a genre that has microtransactions in it, but itis definitely not the main focus.

    Playing MUDs and MMOs since 1994.

    image
  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Member CommonPosts: 10,910
    Originally posted by Stizzled
    Originally posted by iridescence

    Would it be so bad for them to call these games "microtransaction funded" or something similar and more accurate rather than "free to play"? I'm glad this whole shady business is getting government scrutiny. I hope authorities over here follow suit.

     

     

    Of course it wouldn't be bad, though it doesn't quite roll off the tongue like F2P does. But, just to be fair, other games should have to do the same thing.

     

    Buy to Play doesn't really tell the whole truth, almost every B2P game has microtransactions, I guess we can start calling those "box fee with optional microtransaction funded".

     

    Again, same thing for Pay to Play, it doesn't really tell you what it's charging for, pay could simply mean the initial box fee. We'll start calling P2P games "box fee plus required monthly subscription along with optional microstransactions funded".

     

    Or, and I know this is crazy, we could just continue to call them exactly what they are, F2P, B2P and P2P.

     

    With some checks in place for the specific areas that need addressing.  For instance, mobile games bypassing password requirements for purchases.  Games marketed to children may need even more stringent checks in place to prevent running bills up.

     

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • MurlockDanceMurlockDance Member Posts: 1,223
    Originally posted by Elikal

    In a staggering move, the European Commission currently debates to disallow companies calling games "free" which apparently are not, since they have paywall of certain kind, and only games are allowed to call themselves "free to play" which are free in it's entirety.

    Source: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-02-27-free-to-play-misleading-advertising-in-europe

    Quote:

    "The Consumer Protection Cooperation and EC member states have released a list of common positions on the subject, with misleading advertising at the top.

    "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," the group said."

     

    Which I fully support! I am glad to see how the EU often sides with the customers. *waves EU flag* :)

    I think the most important part of that article is actually this: '"Consumers and in particular children need better protection against unexpected costs from in-app purchases," consumer policy commissioner Neven Mimica said in a statement. "National enforcement authorities and the European Commission are discussing with industry how to address this issue which not only causes financial harm to consumers but can also put at stake the credibility of this very promising market. Coming up with concrete solutions as soon as possible will be a win-win for all."' (my underlines).

    First, it is in discussion... it is not a bit of legislation or anything of the sort. It is more like they are trying to draw up a list of best practices. Who knows how legally binding it is?

    Second, it is about phone/tablet apps and is really geared for children (and therefore parents who are the actual consumers since it is their money that is getting spent).

    Playing MUDs and MMOs since 1994.

    image
  • MurlockDanceMurlockDance Member Posts: 1,223
    Originally posted by Stizzled

    My problem with all of this is why do these children have access to the credit card, or account with the credit card info stored, in the first place? I mean, who's really at fault, the company that tries to make purchases as easy as possible, or the parent that gave the child with no concept of money access to their credit card? It's a band-aid on a problem that game companies have no control over, only the parents of the child do.

     

    I'm all for changes to the in-app purchases, requiring passwords, retinal scans, fingerprint scans or whatever else is fine by me. But, changing the marketing terms isn't going to have the desired effect. If a child doesn't understand that "Free" doesn't mean completely free then they aren't going to understand "Free*" or "Microstransactions", and they aren't going to understand any pop ups telling them about microtransactions, it's most likely a wasted effort.

     

    Requiring extra verification when making purchases will most likely help, though it isn't going to solve the problem. But, restricting basically free games with optional purchases from using the word "Free" isn't going to help one bit.

    I agree with you overall about using the word "Free" in the case of a game that has optional costs à la Path of Exile. Perhaps it is just to facilitate things for parents determining what their kids get to play. They might think that a game with "free" in the title means just that and did not catch on to its difference with "free-to-play" meaning there will be costs somewhere. This is more important for the bazillions of phone-app games than for the MMORPG scene. I think that a list of 'do's' and 'don'ts' can only help.

    A child can get access to his parents' credit cards a variety of ways I am sure, but it seems to me from reading about these child-oriented apps that they bypass controls that the parents put on the child's tablet/smartphone. That is indeed a big problem because regardless of who did it, it seems to be trying to trick someone, somewhere, into accidently paying for something they did not expect to.

    I think that children would understand that something costs money and is therefore not free unless we are talking about really little kids who don't even know what money is. And yes, I think an additional pop up at the moment of purchase might help make a kid realize he is about to spend real money.

    My main issue though is not the list that the EU or anyone else might draw up but rather the fact that little kids are getting ahold of tablets and smartphones whether their own or their parents. That to me just can't be good and that is nothing that the EU or any government can really do anything about.

    Playing MUDs and MMOs since 1994.

    image
  • BurntvetBurntvet Member RarePosts: 3,465

    Nice.

    The proponents of this crooked marketing approach (and that is what it is) can go suck it.

  • MalevilMalevil Member Posts: 468
    This is potentional regulation is not targeted at MMOs, but for mobile games and in my opinion, as parent of 2 kids, it's badly needed. As an adult I'm aware and (mostly :) ) I'm reistant to various forms of aparent social engineering whose only aim is to get money from me, but it's much much harder, if not impossible, for kids . Arguments about free market are imo bulshit, if we would let corporations do what they want without any regulations, we would still have slavery .
  • JacxolopeJacxolope Member UncommonPosts: 1,140
    Originally posted by Stizzled
    Originally posted by MurlockDance

    Some of it is indeed lack of common sense. I do not think parents should go out and get smartphones or tablets for their kids under a certain age, period. A normal mobile phone is plenty enough for a wee one until they hit an age where they understand about budgeting money and not throwing lots of it on stupid games.

    However I can also see that smartphones are pretty new and are in full evolution especially with the game apps that are available, so I think it is easy for parents to get caught off-guard, especially if they are not fully tech-savvy or do not keep up with all of the novelties in the appstores. One of the common complaints that I have read and heard is that parents had no idea that there were hidden costs or that their kids could bypass the normal safety measures to keep them from being able to make purchases on their parents' credit cards.

    I do not think that MMORPGs are really that interesting to the EU Commission in this light because the mainstay of this genre is fully old enough to understand the meaning of F2A/B2P/P2P. It might still get rounded up in the safety net being thrown out though because it is still a genre that has microtransactions in it, but itis definitely not the main focus.

    My problem with all of this is why do these children have access to the credit card, or account with the credit card info stored, in the first place? I mean, who's really at fault, the company that tries to make purchases as easy as possible, or the parent that gave the child with no concept of money access to their credit card? It's a band-aid on a problem that game companies have no control over, only the parents of the child do.

     

    I'm all for changes to the in-app purchases, requiring passwords, retinal scans, fingerprint scans or whatever else is fine by me. But, changing the marketing terms isn't going to have the desired effect. If a child doesn't understand that "Free" doesn't mean completely free then they aren't going to understand "Free*" or "Microstransactions", and they aren't going to understand any pop ups telling them about microtransactions, it's most likely a wasted effort.

     

    Requiring extra verification when making purchases will most likely help, though it isn't going to solve the problem. But, restricting basically free games with optional purchases from using the word "Free" isn't going to help one bit.

    -One issue I have is when your Credit/Debit card is memorized and purchases are made at the touch of a button.

    I am playing Hearthstone atm (its going to be an Iphone game as well) and was appalled to see it saves my credit card number and has several 'buttons' to make auto purchases including "enter the arena for $1.99"- The place where you purchase things with 'gold' (in game currency) is directly next the place where things are purchased for cash... This is designed for impulse spending and very likely targeting the youth.

    On the flip side- When I played GW's (and had an account for my kids as well) it also kept my credit card information but allowed me to set a limit. This was a very, very good system imho-  My kids had the ability to make purchases but were limited by the amount of money they would make via allowance (monthly) and if they wanted to use the cash shop they had limits I could set- I would never let my kids play HS due to the impulse of having "enter the arena at $1.99" screaming out to them- EARN PRIZES, win BIG!!!!! Only $1.99. BUY NOW- 

    Since Open Beta there have been several posts on the Official forum stating something to the effect of "I used my moms credit card one night to enter the arena and after 6 hours and tons of arena trips I realized I spent over $50.00- When will the bill come?"- These posts are quietly brushed under the rug and disappear.

    This is gambling- Whats worse- This is gambling with no chance to win anything of value- This is gambling for virtual goods you Do Not Own!!!! For $1.99 a pull on the slot machine.

    I am all for Gambling (and I AM a gambler- Both offline and on) but not for using real cash for items which hold no value and can be changed and taken from you at will- Not when the "odds" of winning are not even listed- For example they "say" there is a 1/20 chance to win a legendary for each pack you buy- BUT the eula states everything is subject to change without notice (i.e. here is no oversight, the odds can be changed and you have NO RIGHT to know....)

    -Again, we need to establish laws regarding virtual ownership.

    I understand that overregulation can kill an industry- But no regulation (what we have now) is making the gaming industry the most predatory thing I have ever seen, coupled with huge money in marketing aimed at kids.

    -I also know (and agree) that renaming F2P is merely semantics and does nothing in the short term- I am looking at this 'long term' and its a start. Time to regulate an industry that refuses to regulate itself .

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Member CommonPosts: 10,910
    Originally posted by Stizzled
    Originally posted by MurlockDance

    My main issue though is not the list that the EU or anyone else might draw up but rather the fact that little kids are getting ahold of tablets and smartphones whether their own or their parents. That to me just can't be good and that is nothing that the EU or any government can really do anything about.

    I never even had a cellphone till I finally bought my own, and even then it wasn't a smart phone. It blows my mind how parents can give such young children phones and tablets. A few years ago a friend of mine finally caved in and bought his 7 year old daughter a brand new IPhone because she kept begging him for it, I couldn't believe it.

     

    I guess times have just changed, children are going to keep getting exposed to more and more things that they aren't mentally ready for. It's just a shame that in most cases it's the parents who are the ones doing it. Everyone is always looking for the next best babysitter. First it was T.V., then game consoles and PCs and now it's tablets and smartphones.

     

    What's the difference between buying them a smartphone/tablet and letting them play Nintendo in 90s or get on a personal computer connected to the internet in the 00s?  The same thing that applied then applies now.  Parental supervision is important.  That's been true ever since people have been having kids.  Technology doesn't change it.  The parents that let the television babysit their kids would have just thrown their kids out in the backyard and let the dogs and snakes babysit their kids if they didn't have television.

     

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • Storman1977Storman1977 Member Posts: 207

    What about games that have an in app store for purchases, but the currency to spend in the store can be earned, in app, without any real currency used (DDO, LoTRO)?

  • goboygogoboygo Member RarePosts: 2,141
    Its about freaking time.
  • JacxolopeJacxolope Member UncommonPosts: 1,140
    Originally posted by Stizzled
    Originally posted by lizardbones

    What's the difference between buying them a smartphone/tablet and letting them play Nintendo in 90s or get on a personal computer connected to the internet in the 00s?  The same thing that applied then applies now.  Parental supervision is important.  That's been true ever since people have been having kids.  Technology doesn't change it.  The parents that let the television babysit their kids would have just thrown their kids out in the backyard and let the dogs and snakes babysit their kids if they didn't have television.

     

    Nintendo didn't have an app store filled with Free to Play games for one. As for PCs, Free to Play hadn't become a big thing yet, at least not in the West.

     

    The same goes for Social Media. Back around 2004 when I was playing WoW some of my in-game friends kept trying to get me to make a MySpace page. I knew what it was, but I didn't see a need for it as outside of WoW I didn't know a single person who used MySpace and even fewer knew what it was. Jump to today and I don't know a single person, other than myself, that doesn't have a Facebook account.

     

    Basically, the games these people are talking about regulating didn't exist back then and neither did the devices and services through which people play them. That's the difference.

    -Exactly.

    And the strawman argument of letting your children be babysat by 'dogs and snakes' is just silly.

    When we played Nintendo (and were online back in the day) there was not even DLC. The credit card was almost never used online- People still feared Online shopping.

    IF we had a similar setup (as we do today) when you played Super Mario the game would have a button to purchase all of marios super powers. Mario could never 'get big' or 'shoot flames' or break boxes- Mario would have to play the game small. If you were able to get a '?' box- You would pay .99 to unlock it (instant purchase) and his powers would cost between $2.99 and $7.99 but could be used 3 times each. IF you wanted a friend to play (or wanted to play as Luigi) this would be another $9.99 (devs gotta eat!!!) and the castle stages would be purchased individually for $5.99.

    No. Back in the day there ws no such thing as DLC, Cash shops and the like- You bought a game- You owned it. You could trade with friends, sell it or play the complete game for one upfront price. Even the MMOs of the day were at a set price. When an Xpac was released it was usually similar in size and scope to the original game.

     

    EDIT- Terrible grammar =P

     

  • goboygogoboygo Member RarePosts: 2,141
    Originally posted by Tygranir
    Wait a minute... If you can log into a game and play (regardless of how much content you can play) for free.... how is that not Free to play? You are playing for free!

    Your kind of missing the point Ty, if only part of the whole is free then you can't market the game as "free".  Its a gapping loop hole in F2P marketing that needs to be plugged.  The sooner the better.

  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 19,332
    Originally posted by Tygranir
    Wait a minute... If you can log into a game and play (regardless of how much content you can play) for free.... how is that not Free to play? You are playing for free!

    When you say .."THE GAME" that means the ENTIRE game.

    You don't buy a car and get only half the car or buy a house and get half a house,when someone says you own the house that mean the ENTIRE house.

    It is actually false advertising,they SHOULD be saying you can play SOME of the game and with restrictions.However that does not sound good and does not make for as good marketing as just flat out lying to people.

    We need a lot more than this as well as these games making money off of so called BETA.When you claim Beta,that is self admittance your product is not yet ready for sale.That is against the law to knowingly sell an unfit product.How do they get around it?EASY they don't sell you the game,they sell you cash shop items and as long as they work properly,they are in the green,even though anyone with common sense knows the PARTS of the game are THE game.

    I am sure eventually as people of high authority have kids in gaming and see more of how much developers and the entire industry are twisting the laws around,we will see more change to the laws.

     

    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • JacxolopeJacxolope Member UncommonPosts: 1,140
    Originally posted by Wizardry
    Originally posted by Tygranir
    Wait a minute... If you can log into a game and play (regardless of how much content you can play) for free.... how is that not Free to play? You are playing for free!

    When you say .."THE GAME" that means the ENTIRE game.

    You don't buy a car and get only half the car or buy a house and get half a house,when someone says you own the house that mean the ENTIRE house.

    It is actually false advertising,they SHOULD be saying you can play SOME of the game and with restrictions.However that does not sound good and does not make for as good marketing as just flat out lying to people.

    We need a lot more than this as well as these games making money off of so called BETA.When you claim Beta,that is self admittance your product is not yet ready for sale.That is against the law to knowingly sell an unfit product.How do they get around it?EASY they don't sell you the game,they sell you cash shop items and as long as they work properly,they are in the green,even though anyone with common sense knows the PARTS of the game are THE game.

    I am sure eventually as people of high authority have kids in gaming and see more of how much developers and the entire industry are twisting the laws around,we will see more change to the laws.

     

    I agree with everything but one point-

     

    Cash Shop items do not even have to work properly.

    I am tempted to post a letter I received from Anet regarding a cash shop purchase. I was told they would not even give tech support on the item. I really, really liked Anet (and loved GW's) but they lost me as a consumer over a $6.99 vanity item that they claim they will not even talk to me about.

    I was playing GW's and purchasing a vanity item each month to support a game I loved (since there was no monthly) and one item didnt work (it made my toons legs disappear)- I sent a very kind letter and was pointed to the EULA and told "sorry"- Nothing we can do". I offered to send screenshots (my system specs are FAR ABOVE whats needed) and was again told "all sales are final- No tech support for your item"

    It was actually quite sad- I really liked the company and they will never see a dime from me no matter what game they put out there in the future.

     

    So no- cash shop items do not even have to work- There is no recourse but a chargeback and then you lose your entire account.

  • JacxolopeJacxolope Member UncommonPosts: 1,140
    Originally posted by Stizzled
    Originally posted by Jacxolope
    Originally posted by Stizzled
    Originally posted by lizardbones

    What's the difference between buying them a smartphone/tablet and letting them play Nintendo in 90s or get on a personal computer connected to the internet in the 00s?  The same thing that applied then applies now.  Parental supervision is important.  That's been true ever since people have been having kids.  Technology doesn't change it.  The parents that let the television babysit their kids would have just thrown their kids out in the backyard and let the dogs and snakes babysit their kids if they didn't have television.

     

    Nintendo didn't have an app store filled with Free to Play games for one. As for PCs, Free to Play hadn't become a big thing yet, at least not in the West.

     

    The same goes for Social Media. Back around 2004 when I was playing WoW some of my in-game friends kept trying to get me to make a MySpace page. I knew what it was, but I didn't see a need for it as outside of WoW I didn't know a single person who used MySpace and even fewer knew what it was. Jump to today and I don't know a single person, other than myself, that doesn't have a Facebook account.

     

    Basically, the games these people are talking about regulating didn't exist back then and neither did the devices and services through which people play them. That's the difference.

    -Exactly.

    And the strawman argument of letting your children be babysat by 'dogs and snakes' is just silly.

    When we played Nintendo (and were online back in the day) there was not even DLC. The credit card was almost never used online- People still feared Online shopping.

    IF we had a similar setup (as we do today) when you played Super Mario the game would have a button to purchase all of marios super powers. Mario could never 'get big' or 'shoot flames' or break boxes- Mario would have to play the game small. If you were able to get a '?' box- You would pay .99 to unlock it (instant purchase) and his powers would cost between $2.99 and $7.99 but could be used 3 times each. IF you wanted a friend to play (or wanted to play as Luigi) this would be another $9.99 (devs gotta eat!!!) and the castle stages would be purchased individually for $5.99.

    No. Back in the day there ws no such thing as DLC, Cash shops and the like- You bought a game- You owned it. You could trade with friends, sell it or play the complete game for one upfront price. Even the MMOs of the day were at a set price. When an Xpac was released it was usually similar in size and scope to the original game.

     

    EDIT- Terrible grammar =P

     

    You went a little extreme with it, and I have yet to see a game so heavily monetized, but then I don't play a whole lot of mobile games.

     

    In general I agree with lizardbones, parental supervision is needed, now more than ever it would seem. There are however clear differences between the babysitters of now and then. The problem is, as ever, unsupervised children and, as ever, parents expect the government to do their job for them.

    =D

     

    I know.

     

    I was making a strawman argument myself lol .

  • NilenyaNilenya Member UncommonPosts: 364

    it is probably a good thing that law makers decide to take a keener interest into online gaming of the fantasy variety. There is very little in place to represent the costumers interests.

     

    Free to play should probably not be used as title for games that have limited free play. - Perhaps it would be a better idea to find another label for those games that use micro transactions.

     

    Regardless of whats in a name I think it is a positive for us as gamers if the people who arent into our little hobby, were to educate themselves a bit, and try to understand the market. - I can't be the only one who has purchased a game that was in an unfinished/horrid/not-as-described-on-the-box state, where I just had to shrug and go; oh well.

     

    The free to play description isnt really super important.

    The way I see it, most people who play these games already understand the synergy between the free game and the part that is unlocked through purchase.

    - I'd much rather see them adress some Quality Control issues on games, making it harder to release products that arent up to scratch. Imagine we had a group of unbiased people playtesting products; without trying to advertise their youtube/twitch/blog/website etc, but just playtested for the sake of quality control. Then there could be a real discussion about what to test for. But thats a different can of worms, but one I'd rather the EU spend their moonies on, rather than wether to disallow a label that the culture already understands.

    Imagine if a game like AoC had been playtested by such an authority and been denied their release date based on not having a finished working pvp keeps - which it had advertised on the game box, or any number of other issues it had. - Other games are just as terrible in that regard. - Anyway, it wouldnt be more Quality control than what is in place for your physical leisure products. - But its completely alien to our genre.

  • MardukkMardukk Member RarePosts: 2,222
    Originally posted by Tuchaka

    anybody that needs to be 'saved' from how a game is played by a governmental type institution is terminally stupid. If you can control yourself and not spend tons of money on a F2P there is no problem , if you can't control your spending habits blame yourself.

     

    Hahaha, no kidding. There is so much wrong with this entire situation. A government entity being involved, their interpretation that these games arent free to play and on and on...

    Im sure people within the EU are thrilled that they are spending even three seconds on this.
  • KrematoryKrematory Member UncommonPosts: 608
    Originally posted by Mardukk
    Originally posted by Tuchaka

    anybody that needs to be 'saved' from how a game is played by a governmental type institution is terminally stupid.

     

    If you can control yourself and not spend tons of money on a F2P there is no problem , if you can't control your spending habits blame yourself.

     

    Hahaha, no kidding. There is so much wrong with this entire situation. A government entity being involved, their interpretation that these games arent free to play and on and on... Im sure people within the EU are thrilled that they are spending even three seconds on this.

    It's a case of misleading advertising, and I fully support it, the same way I would with any other product.

    "EVE is likely the best MMORPG that you've never really understood or played" - Kyleran

  • SmikisSmikis Member UncommonPosts: 1,045
    Originally posted by CazNeerg

    It's amazingly sad that the grasp of the English language in the EU is that poor.  I can't think of one F2P game that can't be played for free.

    EDIT: If they can't see that "to play" is an appropriate qualification, they are the ones lacking in appropriate qualifications.

    English language came from eu, so did 80% of NA population, go learn history

  • daltaniousdaltanious Member UncommonPosts: 2,381
    I agree with OP and hope many other states or unions will follow.
  • BurntvetBurntvet Member RarePosts: 3,465

    People in here that are criticizing the decision, and saying you can log into this one for free, and play that one for free, are missing the bit from the EU announcement, where it specifically cites this is because of how such games are advertised.

    The EU found that games that were advertized as free, were not free.

    That's it.

    How and what you can play, and "how free is it" doesn't even come into it.

    It is a straight "truth in advertising" decision.

     

  • Squeak69Squeak69 Member UncommonPosts: 959
    Originally posted by Nilenya

    it is probably a good thing that law makers decide to take a keener interest into online gaming of the fantasy variety. There is very little in place to represent the costumers interests.

     

    Free to play should probably not be used as title for games that have limited free play. - Perhaps it would be a better idea to find another label for those games that use micro transactions.

     

    Regardless of whats in a name I think it is a positive for us as gamers if the people who arent into our little hobby, were to educate themselves a bit, and try to understand the market. - I can't be the only one who has purchased a game that was in an unfinished/horrid/not-as-described-on-the-box state, where I just had to shrug and go; oh well.

     

    The free to play description isnt really super important.

    The way I see it, most people who play these games already understand the synergy between the free game and the part that is unlocked through purchase.

    - I'd much rather see them adress some Quality Control issues on games, making it harder to release products that arent up to scratch. Imagine we had a group of unbiased people playtesting products; without trying to advertise their youtube/twitch/blog/website etc, but just playtested for the sake of quality control. Then there could be a real discussion about what to test for. But thats a different can of worms, but one I'd rather the EU spend their moonies on, rather than wether to disallow a label that the culture already understands.

    Imagine if a game like AoC had been playtested by such an authority and been denied their release date based on not having a finished working pvp keeps - which it had advertised on the game box, or any number of other issues it had. - Other games are just as terrible in that regard. - Anyway, it wouldnt be more Quality control than what is in place for your physical leisure products. - But its completely alien to our genre.

    yes but who would be the ones to "decide" what quality is even amoung gamers we cant put 5 people in a room and get them to all agree, even games like rambo the game have had people defending it.

    its not like quality control on food or buildings wheree the safety of the product is the main form of quality being inspected, its like trying to put quality control on art you cnat because its all opinion based, some of the greatest works in history look like crap to alot of modern people who dont know anything about that field.

    so puting a quality control on gmes is almost impossable, but then agian it snot really required is it, because a smaret gamers know to learn about it before buying it and in this day and age its easyier then ever to do so, with all the reviews all over the place, and all the information youcna get on games before trying them, there really is no excuse for buying a bad game these days, aside from ones own mpatients or lack of careing enough to learn about it first.

    F2P may be the way of the future, but ya know they dont make them like they used toimage
    Proper Grammer & spelling are extra, corrections will be LOL at.

Sign In or Register to comment.