Videogame firms hit with EU complaint over 'tricking consumers'

https://www.reuters.com/technology/videogame-firms-hit-with-eu-complaint-over-tricking-consumers-2024-09-11/

47 40 2 years ago

Spivak2• 2 years ago

It's crazy that such an obvious problem ties the hands of regulators because people are making too much money on it. There is no defensible justification for incorporating a money siphon into an entertainment product.

This could be dealt with swiftly with a law that says that video games must have upfront pricing— either a one time payment or a fixed-cost subscription. It's fine to have loot boxes or random rewards but how many rolls of the dice or your odds can't be affected by IRL money, and in-game items must be purchasable by either in-game currency or money, not both. Items that affect gameplay in any way must be in-game currency.

I would just ban all in-game purchases because it's still a money siphon based on social pressure but I recognize that it's a lesser evil.

darby_nine2• 2 years ago

There is no defensible justification for incorporating a money siphon into an entertainment product.

What do you mean? Society would obviously collapse if we did literally anything else—the Free Market is all that keeps people from murdering each other. By endorsing regulation you're just endorsing murder.

totetsu• 2 years ago

Sounds like we need to be preemptively taking out all the Product Monetization executives if they're so ready to start murdering people.

Aerroon• 2 years ago

As somebody that plays games I would unkindly ask organizations like this to stop existing. The only thing I ever see from these organizations is them lobbying to ban something in the name of "protecting people".

Children do not make their own money. You can't trick someone that doesn't have money, let alone have a credit card to make purchases. It's nonsense.

This could be dealt with swiftly with a law that says that video games must have upfront pricing— either a one time payment or a fixed-cost subscription.

And leave millions of people unable to play games. Free games are popular for the same reason websites are ad supported: people don't want to, can't afford to or lack the payment methods to pay for them.

People used their wallets to vote on this. And they chose the F2P microtransaction-laden P2W games. The vast majority of those players will spend nothing on that game. You make it buy to play and these games are dead on arrival.

If these systems truly were so nefariously predatory as they are portrayed then you'd think that more than a tiny percentage of players would be spending on them.

I don't like these mechanics either, but I grew up playing them (Korean F2P MMOs), because they were the only ones available to me. If this change why through then these games wouldn't suddenly change, they just wouldn't be available in Europe. If the entire world adopted the regulation then the game wouldn't have been made in the first place. Instead you would get "to play this $60 game you must buy our custom $350 hardware" or something else like that.

Or... You would just get less games.

If you don't like a game then just don't play it. Why do you feel the need to make others unable to play it too?

Pannoniae• 2 years ago

"People used their wallets to vote on this. And they chose the F2P microtransaction-laden P2W games. The vast majority of those players will spend nothing on that game. You make it buy to play and these games are dead on arrival.

If these systems truly were so nefariously predatory as they are portrayed then you'd think that more than a tiny percentage of players would be spending on them."

In an ideal world, this would be true. However, this is not that easy when all your friends are playing those crapware games and they don't exactly want to do anything else. No matter what you choose, you lose in some way. These games have negative externalities.

spookie2• 2 years ago

People used their wallets to vote on this. And they chose the F2P microtransaction-laden P2W games.

Look, I understand where you are coming from, I've been there. Living in the rural area, not having access to even a store to buy games, let alone having the money at that age.

But the word you said there: "choose"... I don't think people have "chosen" this.

There are games out there that use 22 different in-game currencies [1]. The way these are interlinked with in game mechanics would make Machiavelli sweat.

Everything in these games is calculated to achieve maximum retention and profits. Yes, the farming, the wasted hours for free users, are backed by statistical and psychological precision. Everything is calculated so a free user is taken to its absolute patience limit, but never actually reach it.

While I would've been more inclined to agree with you say... 10 years ago, today's online purchases are made as frictionless as possible. Kids might not have money themselves and parents should be more cautious about these things, but young adults clearly have the means.

This is a very easy way to have an addiction problem. I do not consider the act of playing video games in general to promote addiction, but the money syphoning tactics these games employ are clearly meant to promote it. Without a sliver of a doubt. Otherwise these companies wouldn't make money to begin with.

[1]: Diablo Immortal

nirvdrum3• 2 years ago

I'd be more than happy with fewer games. These F2P games are deliberately designed to prey on people's weaknesses because, as much as we'd like to pretend otherwise, humans are not entirely rational. Moreover, humans are not uniform, which is why it disproportionately affects a smaller percentage of the population. It's not unlike gambling. It's also why expecting the market to shift this isn't going to work -- that same small percentage is what's driving much of the profitability.

Besides the exploitation, it's just flat out ruining gaming. The top games on iOS and Android are just IAP-laden garbage designed to manipulate people into making progress and then locking them out. But, since every company is supposed to maximize profitability, they all end up gradually adding similar mechanisms. The market can't push back in any meaningful way. Sure, you'll see some games have to backtrack (Battlefront II) or some flat out fail (Concord), but mobile is a different beast than console (for the time being, at least). And I think this is an area where regulation is the only thing that can make a level playing field.

Not to mention the F2P games arguably engage in price dumping. Consumers in all markets will gravitate towards the lowest cost option. Here, a game doesn't have to be particularly good or even good for the player, it just has to be cheaper than other games. It's making it harder for there to be a legitimate video game market. I really think Apple did the world a disservice with iOS purchase policies. IAP makes it way too easy to hide the true price and for years you couldn't even find the price until you used the app (now it's hidden away, but accessible, on the store page). It predictably led to a deluge of free apps and games that made it much harder to engage in what I'd consider more ethical commerce. Hell, I've purchased apps and still had functionality very unexpectedly locked behind IAP.

If F2P games can't find a way to profitability that doesn't rely on exploiting people, then so be it. I don't think anything is truly lost. Societal productivity would very likely increase because people wouldn't be grinding for hours just to get to that next level.

Spivak2• 2 years ago

I actually don't care about "protecting people." I just think this is a market failure in the same vein as hidden fees. It obscures the real price of the game— a particularly egregious example is that For Honor actually costs $700+, and it creates a race to the bottom where now everyone tries to offer a low cost buy-in while the game is secretly expensive. If you make it so that avenue is closed to everyone then it keeps the playing field level.

I have no desire to prevent anyone from playing those kinds of games except as a collective action to change what the market rewards and that's what government is good at. I don't care if you want to spend your money on Genshin, but I do want a games market that fixes the "people say that micro transactions make games worse but they make more money for the company" problem.

everforward• 2 years ago

There are some niceties from it, primarily that it keeps games affordable to virtually everyone. The price of a video game hasn’t really changed since the 90s. If anything, it’s come down given how many major games are F2P these days.

I don’t think it’s abhorrent in principle that people with expendable income bankroll the game for people without in exchange for silly skins. Somebody has to pay, and I suspect the upfront purchase price will be higher than people expect.

PlunderBunny• 2 years ago

As far as I can see, the article doesn't give any examples of what the complaint is specifically about ("tricking consumers about the real cost"). I don't think the complaint is about 'in-app' purchases for skins etc in-and-of-itself.

Kikawala• 2 years ago

https://www.digitaljournal.com/tech-science/eu-consumer-grou...

This one give slightly more information.

"Today, premium in-game currencies are purposefully tricking consumers and take a big toll on children. Companies are well aware of children's vulnerability and use tricks to lure younger consumers into spending more,"

Gacha games.

CobrastanJorji• 2 years ago

Gacha is a good example, but those base builders that feature fun characters and start slowing and slowing you down more, promising you can unlock the next level of cannon or whatever for just a few cents more, those are nasty.

Or the ones that offer a way to battle baddies with your friends but your weapons are just not quite good enough, but there's a premium upgrade...

I remember my kid playing a little "My Little Pony" game on iPad that was free and pleasant and then four levels in, suddenly "oh, you need Twilight for the next missions. Parents, Twilight costs $5."

musicale3• 2 years ago

"Getting more with less: 6 high-yield design patterns for f2p games"

https://turbine.games/2020/04/22/getting-more-with-less-6-hi...

Basically the MMO playbook.

Unfortunately my brain actually thinks some of these things are "fun". (Spending/losing $1M in a game is probably not fun however.)

The whole blog is interesting reading, if you have a strong stomach.

ChrisArchitect2• 2 years ago

it's the increased vulnerability to 'overspending' because according to them the realworld values of things aren't displayed alongside virtual currency amounts.

namrog84• 2 years ago

I do like the idea. But which amount do you show when virtual currencies have different values depending on how much you acquire at a time? Or should it always show worst 1:1 equivalence?

BlackFly• 2 years ago

Buying cosmetics in games is basically just playing digital barbie, and I do not mean that pejoratively. Dressing up dolls (both male and female) is an activity loved by people of all ages and genders. Pay to win has its defenders from people who work hard for their money and just want a game which is more fun than challenging.

The EU has been pretty good at legislating digital content rules in order to achieve a basic level of equivalence between your digital dress for your digital barbie and a physical one: if it doesn't fit properly, if it isn't the color advertised, basically any lack of objective or subjective conformance and they either fix it or give your money back. Permanence thereof is a bit up in the air.

Buried in the directive on digital content and services is this fun interpretation:

Digital representations of value such as electronic vouchers or e-coupons are used by consumers to pay for different goods or services in the digital single market. Such digital representations of value are becoming important in relation to the supply of digital content or digital services, and should therefore be considered as a method of payment within the meaning of this Directive. Digital representations of value should also be understood to include virtual currencies, to the extent that they are recognised by national law. Differentiation depending on the methods of payment could be a cause of discrimination and provide an unjustified incentive for businesses to move towards supplying digital content or a digital service against digital representations of value. However, since digital representations of value have no other purpose than to serve as a method of payment, they themselves should not be considered digital content or a digital service within the meaning of this Directive.

They are inventing payment methods and then requiring them, possibly in contradiction to legal tender laws. Plus, they are legally currencies, standard contract terms notwithstanding. In principal, one needs to report that to tax authorities. But that discrimination hints at the fact that the practice probably falls under the unfair commercial practices legislation among others. This is quite obvious if you think about it, why are they introducing and requiring those currencies but to obscure the cost and attempt to circumvent our ordinary commercial laws?

Videogame firms hit with EU complaint over 'tricking consumers'

Related Stories