Free2Play Under Review

[Neon Ignition]

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/400629/free-to-play-schemes-could-be-unlawful-warns-office-of-fair-trading/

The Office of Fair Trading is investigating whether F2P games could be argued as being unlawful, effectively via false advertising.

I can see what they mean, there's several decent examples but also too many which fly under the banner despite giving a minimum of content and expecting payments to unlock the rest

[EvilBoris]

It's specifically that these games are aimed at or are accessible to children and there are specific laws that regulate advertising to children.

[Dogg Thang]

A good start would just be to rename them Pay To Progress games.

[FelixofMars]

It had to happen really, whatever the F2P developers/designers have to say it's essentially gambling with no prize pot and certainly should be under review. There are so many shallow F2P games to get you to pay for progress. I would prefer if there was some value to them instead of social and psychological engineering.

[MartyG]

A good start would just be to rename them Pay To Progress games.

And stop calling them Micro Transactions. After seeing some of these titles listing upgrades of ?69, I think there really should be an upper limit imposed - ?69 is hardly a micro transaction.

[capcom_suicide]

I agree. Three simple measures:

1.) Clearly state the fact it costs money to progress

2.) Childrens games should require the password to purchase items, regardless of IOS/Android settings

3.) There should be an upper limit displayed for every game. If you really can buy ?50,000 of smurfberries, then it should be shown as such. This I would imagine would encourage developers to have a cap at ?50 or similar.

[Asura]

Whilst the OFT is well-meaning, this probably won't achieve much.

And stop calling them Micro Transactions. After seeing some of these titles listing upgrades of ?69, I think there really should be an upper limit imposed - ?69 is hardly a micro transaction.

They're already called In-App-Purchases/IAPs by developers; people just call them Micro-Transactions because that's the term which caught on.

I agree. Three simple measures:

1.) Clearly state the fact it costs money to progress

2.) Childrens games should require the password to purchase items, regardless of IOS/Android settings

3.) There should be an upper limit displayed for every game. If you really can buy ?50,000 of smurfberries, then it should be shown as such. This I would imagine would encourage developers to have a cap at ?50 or similar.

1) Every game already does that.
2) On iOS devices every expenditure of cash does require a password input. Even some free stuff requires it. The problem is that if you buy something, there's a "grace" of 5 minutes or so where you remain logged in, and that's when kids have bought stuff. It's no different to parents giving their kids a credit card and PIN for 5 minutes and getting angry at the cashier at the sweet shop when the kids have spent ?50. For 5 year-olds there's a potential excuse, but 9 years and up? You might want to punish your children for wilfully spending your money before you run after the App creator.
3) This would potentially be a good idea.

However, I see a better answer earlier in the thread - renaming the genre. I prefer to call it "free-to-start", but "pay-to-progress" would work too. Getting the word "free" crowbarred into that description is a kind of supreme marketing witchcraft. It needs to be removed.

[originalbadboy]

Should a five year old even be playing on an iPhone ... I think not ...

[Asura]

Should a five year old even be playing on an iPhone ... I think not ...

Well, I think so too - but obviously they are, given some of these headlines.

[jim g]

Should a five year old even be playing on an iPhone ... I think not ...

there are tons of IOS games aimed at under 5's for educational and fun.My brothers 3 year old is very good at playing train games which are aimed at kids

IOS games are no different to 3 year playing on a Wii, except without good control, they can make in game purchases by mistake if parents are not diligent enough.

[wakka]

Should a five year old even be playing on an iPhone ... I think not ...

Didn't you like videogames when you were 5?

[vanpeebles]

That simpsons tap game is appalling, zero game play. It's only purpose is to engineer cash transactions.

[Dogg Thang]

That's the purpose of just about all of these pay to progress games. The difference is how much they offer free, where they draw their lines and just how accepting individual customers are of those lines. But they obviously exist to get enough people to pay, and over and over again. And this is why I reject that model - it's not about charging people for the best game experience they can offer, it's about holding the experience to ransom and seeing what they can get away with. It is not in our interests.

[speedlolita]

Didn't you like videogames when you were 5?
[/COLOR]

Can you compare the likes of Mario Land 2 to the trash on iOS? Nah.

[wakka]

Haha, definitely not. I actually feel bad for kids these days, growing up playing crappy games built around constant nags to buy stuff. BITD the Gameboy had a mindblowing library.

All the children I know in my family have iPod touches, none of them have a 3DS or Vita. Shame really. But I don't think there's anything wrong with them playing iPod touch games.

If I had kids they would be on a strict diet of Nintendo.