Such games are often misleading, since they are not really free. The 'Free' label is just used because people will impulse-install a free application more quickly than a paid application and in the end an addicted gamer will probably spend more through in-app purchases.
I think there is a good middle ground that can be found. Instead of listing in-app purchases separately, Apple, Google, et al. could make three options:
- <Price>
- Free
- Free with in app-purchases
It would also be nice if every app store listed all the in-app purchases. Then I, as a customer, can consider beforehand whether I found the prices to be acceptable.
Say "Free game of the week with paid IAP still included", I don't have a problem with this.
I mean, damn. Do these same people go to a club, get in for free, and then wonder why they still have to pay for drinks?
> Say "Free game of the week with paid IAP still included", I don't have a problem with this.
I guarantee that using that wording, people would think that the paid IAP was included with the "Free game of the week." I mean, they are already dumb enough to see a price and ignore it.
If it's "125 tokens for $10", that's not really telling you the price. Video arcades used this abstraction tactic successfully. Make people convert money upfront, make the exchange rate difficult to calculate mentally, ensure that the user is left with worthless "change" so they top up again, to avoid being left with sunk costs.
If every time an IAP is offered it showed prices in real $/€, people would think twice.
For my part, I've stopped installing stuff that "offers" this because of the lack of details, but it's extremely annoying to end up clicking through dozens of games to find ones without in-app purchasing because it's not called out in the search results... They've clearly done the bare minimum, in order to avoid losing installs over it. If they cared about their users, they'd have made it far more obvious.
Examples:
* Game costs average $1 per month, SD 20¢; OK cool.
* Game is "free" costs average of $20 per month, SD $5.
* Game is free. Average $0 per month.
* Game is 99¢ fixed. Average $0 additional per month.
Even better they could give a playing time [weighted average] too. Then you could compare:
* Game is "free" costs average of $20 per month, SD $5; $1 per hour of play.
* Game costs average $1 per month, SD 20¢; $2 per hour of play.
Seems about as likely as getting the supermarkets to clearly display the cost per kg of all food items.
If companies are intentionally gaming the system to mislead people with intent to profit from us, yes, I do want the government to get involved because nobody else will fix it. Apple's the curator and they're doing it, the app developers are doing it, so who do we have left to complain to?
It's the government's responsibility to make sure companies follow the laws and not take advantage of people.
I do not have a problem with IAP, I'm okay with companies trying to make money via that method.
However, I do have a problem with companies saying those are free games where they aren't free and have paid requirements to keep playing the game.
WTF? Those free games don't cost you a thing, too! And damn, if you don't want to pay, you don't have to. Apple tells you straight out if a game, free or otherwise, has IAP. They provide you with prices.
What more do you want?
> I do have a problem with companies saying those are free games where they aren't free and have paid requirements to keep playing the game.
So... your problem is that you don't enjoy some free games? You think if a game isn't good enough, it shouldn't be free? That's harsh.
Of all the first world problems to have, this really takes the cake.
People want clarity of information.
You keep saying that the price is listed. But IAPs are hidden behind an extra click. This might seem trivial to you but it is the kind of thing that the EU regulates and most citizens are pleased they do so.
Take another example. In the UK if you're a business marketing to the public and you advertise goods you must include the VAT in the advertised price. The end user almost always has to pay the VAT so it's nonsensical to advertise a product to the public without it.
Today Apple has a featured game which they call free. You click it to get to the game page and it is listed at free+. You scroll down and click IAPs and see that they offer an IAP for £34.99 - that's $58
Apple scoops up a lot of the IAP money and so it is in their interest to push games with IAPs, and it is dishonest of them to push games as free if those games are not truly free.
It is this dishonest advertising model that has driven app prices to such a low point. Someone honestly advertising a game at £5 is going to struggle to make any money.
Let's see. Game section, and the top free game I see is Disco Zoo. It's advertised as free. It's described as best new game.
Tap.
Okay, let's see, still free. Swipey Swipey swipe. Pretty pictures, Game Center, and oh look! IAP. But yres, I need to tsp to see those prices.
I wonder..,
So yeah, it's battleship meets zoos. You earn gold in game and use that to fund your battle shipping excursions. I guess if I'm impatient I can just buy more gold. Yep.
Yes yes, I see your point! The game is clearly not free! I have to buy that gold instead of playing the game.
Thank god the EU is there to tackle the horrors of Disco Zoo.
Seriously, the only dishonesty here are the people claims of suffering from this.
In the EU the price you see is the price you pay. Weights and measures are standardised so people can compare proces across different stores.
In the US the price you see is less than the price you pay. You add sales tax. That makes it harder to compare prices.
The problem isn't that apps cost money nor that they offer IAPs. The problem is the lack of tranparency with apps. This means that good quality apps with honest procing are penalised by lower quality apps that hide the cost in IAPs but describe themselves as free.
You only need to look at the App Store to see how dysfunctional the current system is.
I realy don't know why you are so aggressively dismissive of something that would allow developers to advertise their software at a sensible real cost and not have to compete with shitty "free" apps that hide the cost in IAPs.
If they're saying it's the free game of the week, people actually understood it to mean it's actually free. Several of my friends and family members got confused with this and actually thought the IAP was free as well.
> So... your problem is that you don't enjoy some free games? You think if a game isn't good enough, it shouldn't be free? That's harsh.
What does enjoyment have to do with anything? That wasn't the point, the point is the marketing, not the games itself. I don't have a problem with the games, I have a problem with the marketing saying they're free entirely.
You from a parent comment: "Their free app of the week is often so-called free games but they almost always have in-app purchases that's required to actually enjoy the game."
> Several of my friends and family members got confused with this and actually thought the IAP was free as well.
Yep. I'm done.
No, the games are free.
> You can't call your food pesticide-free or GM-free or gluten-free unless it really is.
Yeah, not even the same thing.
You didn't clarify that in your original post here. If I understood this is what you meant then I would've edited my post to remove the "fun" part but rather change it with "take full advantage of".
If Plaint and Zombies were advertised as a free game, you download it but it only lets you play 5 minutes before you have to pay, then that's not a free game. It's a free demo/trial.
> Yeah, not even the same thing.
Yes, it is in this point we're making. The people didn't make this happen, it required the intervention of the government to mandate this type of information accuracy.
What? That was literally in reply to your post which I replied to.
"Their free app of the week is often so-called free games but they almost always have in-app purchases that's required to actually enjoy the game."
You were talking about enjoyment from the beginning.
> Yes, it is in this point we're making
Not sure you know what point you are making.
Sorry, I'm done dealing with people who act like trolls.
Given that almost all of us arguing from either side would probably agree with this, there are two obvious options:
1. Allow the current situation, in which you can market anything as free, literally an app that does nothing without spending on IAP, so long as it is free to download
2. Prevent the use of the term 'free' if IAP is present at all.
In the interests of the consumer, to offer protection from unscrupulous companies which, particularly in this marketplace, have demonstrated some pretty unethical practises, I favour the latter.
> Yeah, not even the same thing.
Not the exact same thing, but not that different either. If I spray my fruits with pesticides that then get washed off in the rain, or stay in the crust which I remove before selling, I could reasonably argue that they are "pesticide-free". It's the government that forbids me to market them that way.
That's not a helpful response. If you want to disagree - why is this different?
It makes sense to me for 'free' to mean 'free forever'. You could call it 'free to download' or whatever. Its basically false or misleading advertising to call something 'free' which you could end up paying for...
Apple is very big. It has a lot of people, and a lot of money, and a lot of clout.
Government is the countervailing force that, collectively, weak citizens can use to push back against private power. The word isn't "nanny", it's "guardian". It's "advocate".
There's a tragic irony in the fact that government routinely uses supposed consent to justify violence, while Apple (as far as I know, although shady stuff might happen from time to time) actually obtains consent from its stakeholders.
Apple doesn't have to go around telling everyone "It's okay that we take your money in exchange for our products, because you actively consent to the exchange," because everyone knows that's how it works. And yet government, which plainly doesn't work that way, is the one that hammers into our heads the lie that the exchange is consensual. It would be laughable, except that so many people actually get fooled.
Apple doesn't have to do that because we don't rely on it to safeguard our life, liberty, and property. If it disappeared tomorrow the economy would take a hit but life would go on.
You are free to avoid me killing you. Just leave your house and never come back so I can live in your house in peace. Ridiculous logic.
At best, that just renews the consent of those who do consent. If I didn't vote, or voted for the losing candidate or option, then I am still governed despite not consenting.
That's precisely my point. It's a linguistic trick to make it sound like an exchange is justified despite there not actually being consent. The analogy would be Apple forcefully taking x hundred dollars from you, giving you an iPhone, then saying the exchange is justified because 50.1% of the smartphone market consensually buys iPhones. (I made up that number, obviously.)
That is the consent of the governed.
Seriously, take some responsibility.
If products are being sold deceptively, there's a public interest in preventing that. Responsibility has nothing to do with it.
So? That's part of the conversation? Either join in or leave.
> If products are being sold deceptively
They aren't. They are free. Money doesn't exchange hands. You are getting a game you can play for free.
Alternatively: Me leave? After you, pal.
As to your second point: The product being sold in question is the in-app purchase, not the original app. The app, however, could be part of a deceptive marketing practice.
Not being a citizen of a EU member state nor an expert in its legal system, I am content to leave this decision up to its regulatory apparatus. If the citizens of any EU member country are dissatisfied, they can elect governments that will leave the union, or elect Members of European Parliament that will change the rules.
But then who will protect my children from things I disagree with???
Ban allowing people to give free samples. They only make people believe that they can get more of what they want for free. Who are they to arbitrarily define how much a "sample" is when they use the word free? It's all or nothing, folks, stop trying to con the rest of us!
Ban allowing people to do charity work. If people don't want to become my personal slave, then they shouldn't have offered to open the door for me. Super simple stuff.
We could make Candy Crush as exciting as opening a bank account!
Take some responsibility and stop asking the government to be your nanny.