Howdy, Stranger!

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

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

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

123468

Comments

  • MalevilMalevil BratislavaPosts: 468Member
    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 Jackson, MIPosts: 924Member
    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 .

  • StizzledStizzled Springfield, MOPosts: 1,264Member Uncommon
    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.


  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member
    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.

  • StizzledStizzled Springfield, MOPosts: 1,264Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Jacxolope

    -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 .

    Stuff like this is why I make it a point to never pull out my debit card. I used time cards for both WoW and LotRO, and even now I use station cash cards or ultimate game cards for purchases. The fact that I force myself to physically go out and pick up the card stops me from making impulse purchases... most of the time anyway.

     

    I think the last time I used debit info for a game was when I purchased my PS4, it came with $20 free for my PS wallet and required me to put in my info to get it, at which point it also auto subscribed me for automatic refilling, which I had to agree to to get the free cash. I had a hell of a time finding out how to unsubscribe and remove my info.

     

    But, I realize that this isn't targeted at me. I can regulate my spending, but some people and especially children cant. So, I'm not going to deny that something could be done, I just worry about where it all might lead to, it could make things better and it could just make them worse. I also worry about the ability of these people to actually do some good when the first thing they go after is the use of the word "Free". That doesn't give me hope that they'll go after the issues they should be in the future.


  • Storman1977Storman1977 Columbus, OHPosts: 207Member

    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)?

    image

  • StizzledStizzled Springfield, MOPosts: 1,264Member Uncommon
    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.


  • goboygogoboygo Posts: 790Member Uncommon
    Its about freaking time.
    "Fighting Internet stupidity one post at at time"
  • JacxolopeJacxolope Jackson, MIPosts: 924Member
    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 Posts: 790Member Uncommon
    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.

    "Fighting Internet stupidity one post at at time"
  • WizardryWizardry Ontario, CanadaPosts: 8,444Member Uncommon
    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.

     


    Samoan Diamond

  • StizzledStizzled Springfield, MOPosts: 1,264Member Uncommon
    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.


  • JacxolopeJacxolope Jackson, MIPosts: 924Member
    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 Jackson, MIPosts: 924Member
    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 TMIPosts: 364Member Uncommon

    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 Posts: 1,556Member Uncommon
    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 TVNPosts: 542Member Uncommon
    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 VilniusPosts: 1,045Member
    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 waPosts: 2,144Member Uncommon
    I agree with OP and hope many other states or unions will follow.
  • BurntvetBurntvet Baltimore, MDPosts: 2,941Member Uncommon

    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 Colorado Springs, COPosts: 956Member
    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.

  • TorvalTorval Oregon CountryPosts: 7,209Member Uncommon

    Maybe they will start to look hard at all virtual goods and services and how they're marketed and advertised. There is a whole world of injustice out there in the entertainment industry.

    Hopefully they will also stop companies from charging monthly fees for digital goods and only allowing you to rent them

    There should also be laws about selling digital virtual goods and then limiting access to them unless you pay more (eg: monthly sub fees to access digital content you've purchased via box fees, cash shops, plex, etc). Talk about predatory. Do people understand what sort of scam they're getting into with this?

    How about virtual item loss? Companies shouldn't be allowed to destroy or cause the loss of virtual items people have paid for regardless of subscription status. How about resource loss in games like EVE, wurm, UO, and darkfall? Charging a fee and having virutal property destroyed is essentially a criminal scam.

    Protection from predatory practices in the gaming industry should extend to every corner of the market not just marketing terms.

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member
    Originally posted by Burntvet

    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.

     

     

    They also aren't talking about MMORPGs.  They are talking specifically about mobile and tablet games, especially those games marketed to children.

     

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

  • meilirsmeilirs Artesia, CAPosts: 32Member
    Originally posted by lizardbones
    Originally posted by Burntvet

    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.

     

     

    They also aren't talking about MMORPGs.  They are talking specifically about mobile and tablet games, especially those games marketed to children.

     

    Yes, I have two kids in the house who have access to mobile games/apps so it's very important that there is protection for them not to be mislead into thinking things are free if they are not.

  • Solar_ProphetSolar_Prophet Columbus, OHPosts: 875Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by meilirs
    Originally posted by lizardbones
    Originally posted by Burntvet

    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.

     

     

    They also aren't talking about MMORPGs.  They are talking specifically about mobile and tablet games, especially those games marketed to children.

     

    Yes, I have two kids in the house who have access to mobile games/apps so it's very important that there is protection for them not to be mislead into thinking things are free if they are not.

    Or you could actually be a parent  and explain to them that sometimes things are not always exactly as they appear, and thus prepare them for the (hopefully) long lives ahead of them... but I guess it's just easier to let the government raise your children, huh?

     

    AN' DERE AIN'T NO SUCH FING AS ENUFF DAKKA, YA GROT! Enuff'z more than ya got an' less than too much an' there ain't no such fing as too much dakka. Say dere is, and me Squiggoff'z eatin' tonight!

Sign In or Register to comment.