Free to Play is misleading. I don't care to use the model, but I wouldn't ban it but the name needs to change.
Please explain WHY it needs to change.
Can you play the game for free? Yes
Do you have the OPTION of spending money for special things if you want them? Yes, but that doesnt effect the 1st question, hence the optional part. If you stop spending $, you can still play exactly the same as before you started spending $.
But the name doesn't reflect that money can enter the picture. If that is a part if it, should the name reflect it? And how bout the fact that you don't get the entire game for free, just some of it. In that context, the 'game' isn't free to play, just parts of the game, and other parts of that same game cost money to play. Why shouldn't a name that reflects the pricing nature of the game reflect the true nature of that pricing structure?
Thats where you and about 90% of people who complain about F2P are wrong. Have you ever played any F2P game besides LOTRO or DDO?
Those are the only 2 main ones which actually lock CONTENT. The majority of F2P games, the entire game, every single area, quest, character, etc is 100% free. The stuff you spend money on is stuff like faster XP pots, better chances at upgrading weapons, special cosmetic costumes, etc but absolutely nothing that you need to experience any part of the game.
But all that stuff you mention is part of the game. You may not care about or value it, or think it is meaningless but it IS part of the game. And its not free.
Do you understand what the word optional means? You are NOT required to buy ANY of those things to PLAY the game. It is Free 2 Play, not Free 2 be the best and have every item in the game.
Complaining that you have to pay for things that ar enot required to access any of the content in the game is akin to complaining you got a free car, but decided you wanted some nice shiny rims and a deafening sound system (both optional) and they wouldnt give those to you free too.
What you refuse to understand is that the name 'pay to play' is not a complete description of the subscription model being used. Whether its optional or not, the entire game being offered is not free.
I dont know why this is so difficult to get you to understand...
Are you able to login and play the game 100% completely free, from character creation to endgame content? YES
Does that make it FREE to PLAY.... again key word here is PLAY? YES
Do you have the option of lets say spending half the time you would leveling for free by paying some $? Yes.
Does that mean you cant still do it free? No.
Nowhere, anywhere in what you ar etrying to argue is there any REQUIRED payment. Thus it is free. If you, of your own free will decide you want to spend some money on some extra stuff, that is your choice. But again it is not required to PLAY the game.
Like i said, F2P = Free 2 PLAY. You may not be the best, or level the fastest, or have every costume & pet in the game, but you are still PLAYING for free.
Its difficult for you to get me to understand because you're wrong. 100% of the game is not free to play. But the title doesn't refelect that.
No you are wrong. The game is 100% free to play, There are just add-ons that you can pay for if you choose. You all keep bringing up "targeting kids/minors" What is a kid/minor doing with access to your CC??? That is the real thing that needs to be addressed. If you are dumb enough to
a) Give your kid your CC unsupervised.
b) Give your kid unsupervised/unmonitored internet access.
c) A smart phone without locking it down (I would also argure a cell phone period).
d) all of the above
Then stop complaining about F2P. You bought it on yourself. Advertiving had marketed to childeren for DECADES! This is nothing new! The fact that you have no control over you own child isn't the industies fault. It is yours. It has been this way forever! Advertise "Free Candy", but only certain candy is free. There is other candy in the store that you can buy, but there is free candy if you want it. You don't have to buy any candy to get the "Free Candy", but just because you were dumb enough to let your kid go in with your CC to get the "Free Candy", don't blame the candy store if your kids buys $1,400 worth of extra candy.
This whole "I want it ALL 100% free" crowd are just a bunch on spoiled whiners who need to grow up and see the REAL world.
Unfortunately, the US govt thinks it is your mommy. Thus they have to get involved whether your actual mommy is doing her job or not stopping you from buying things you werent supposed to. The FTC needs to stay out of this and let the parents pay for the consequences of not parenting.
I do think it's kind of odd in terms of how greedy businesses have advertised in the world to date. The FTC allows all kinds of lies out of the advertisers' mouths, why pick on "Free to Play" games all of a sudden?
It's because, of course, it hit the news in a ngative way. If we had the same headlines about "free cell phones", which never were free, for example, but always required a contract, then cell phone retailers would have been "investigated" too.
The FTC was never about "free trade", in either sense of the word. It is about regulation the way the politicians in office see fit to regulate (That's is why it's so important to know your candidates intimately before you go to the polls to vote. Choosing who gets put in our offices starts long before the candidates are chosen, long before, and if you wait until you go to the ballot box, you have already given up most of your power as a voter.) Fortunately, much of that is beneficial, but a lot of it is biased and wrong and actually limits captalism, stifles innovation, and allows poorly run busineeses to keep doing bad business long passed their prime. Of course, some of these laws have nothing to do with the FTC.
Personally, I think the "F2P" model is a legitimate one, but it is misleading in its name and I do believe that was intended by the majority of publishers who adopted it. They want to hide behind the statement "We don't require a subscription for you to play, so it's not misleading." If you don't intend to mislead then, say up front that much of the game will be locked to you unless you pay for something, don't hide that fact to be discovered after someone starts playing. The good publishers are doing this. I think they would also do well to choose another name for this type of model and promote it, one other than "F2P". "NS" for "No Subscription" works for me.
Have played: Everquest, Asheron's Call, Horizons, Everquest2, World of Warcraft, Lord of the Rings Online, Warhammer, Age of Conan, Darkfall
Unfortunately, the US govt thinks it is your mommy. Thus they have to get involved whether your actual mommy is doing her job or not stopping you from buying things you werent supposed to. The FTC needs to stay out of this and let the parents pay for the consequences of not parenting.
Well, I agree with that but a smurf game where a 8 year old kid can spend 1400 bucks is taking things too far.
Yes, it is the parents responsibility but that is highway robbery aimed at kids. The other 2 cases are just silly and the parents should just pay it but the #¤%& smurf game should be taken out of it's misery.
Most F2P games on any media us perfectly fine but we got one case that is a scam, that is more than I payed for my IRL furniture. But the retailer should really have nipped this in the bud, the publisher do have some responsibilities to the consumers.
It would suck if one scamming game would affect the whole genre and stop F2P MMOs as well.
Be careful what you wish for. Typically if you let the government stick their toe in the door they will kick it open and be eating Cheetos on your couch before you know it ;-)
and sometimes if you don't let them through your door you leave it open to even more unsavoury and unscrupulous dealers.
saying don't let the government in, in the way this quote suggests, in cases of regulation is really saying be against of any type of policing versus dishonest misrepresentation and exploitation.
I hope we can all see how ridiculous that is?
I certainly don't trust the corperations to play fair, and I don't see any civilian movements or indie web sites (including this one) doing anything to raise consumer awareness and fight for the little man in this industry. Maybe if a gaming site or two decided to step up and put integrity before advertising slots from F2P corps the government would decide that the industry can self regulate and back off.
As it is the gaming internet is a mess of shill sites and paid off opinion formers held to ransom by the same corperations that want to push commercial agendas. I for one, in this case, welcome the inolvement in the defining and policing of an industry that has proven itself too corrupt and greedy to police itself.
I think the problem lies in the "automatic charges" type features.... where a service automaticaly stores details about your credit card (or phone account) and bills you whenever you make a "purchase" without any real intervention required on your part...... combine that with stupid practices like 15 minute "password caching" on parental control features....and deceptive practices that make it unclear to kids that they are making REAL $$ purchases rather then just playing with pretend money and you've got a huge window for abuse.
The service companies could fix this easly if they wanted to by requiring a user to enter physical details from thier Credit Card ... (or phone account statement).... EVERY SINGLE time they make a purcase. That would nip 90% of this in the bud...but alot of unscrupulous companies don't want to do that...because they count on unauthorized purchases as part of thier revenue stream.... they just figure if the charges are small enough, most users will just let them go. Just like insurance companies put up alot of unneccesary red tape and hurdles in filing a claim or getting treatments pre-aproved, they count on the fact that a certain percentage of people (usualy the most vulnerable) aren't going to have the will-power or fortitude to jump through all the hoops to claim what they are rightfully entitled to and will just give up instead.
No you are wrong. The game is 100% free to play, There are just add-ons that you can pay for if you choose. You all keep bringing up "targeting kids/minors" What is a kid/minor doing with access to your CC??? That is the real thing that needs to be addressed. If you are dumb enough to
a) Give your kid your CC unsupervised.
b) Give your kid unsupervised/unmonitored internet access.
c) A smart phone without locking it down (I would also argure a cell phone period).
d) all of the above
Then stop complaining about F2P. You bought it on yourself. Advertiving had marketed to childeren for DECADES! This is nothing new! The fact that you have no control over you own child isn't the industies fault. It is yours. It has been this way forever! Advertise "Free Candy", but only certain candy is free. There is other candy in the store that you can buy, but there is free candy if you want it. You don't have to buy any candy to get the "Free Candy", but just because you were dumb enough to let your kid go in with your CC to get the "Free Candy", don't blame the candy store if your kids buys $1,400 worth of extra candy.
This whole "I want it ALL 100% free" crowd are just a bunch on spoiled whiners who need to grow up and see the REAL world.
Are those add-ons part of the game? Yes. Can I have them for free? No. The game is not 100% free to play. And I'm not saying I want it all free, nor am I saying the f2p model or games are bad. I'm just saying that as a description of the pay model, 'free to play' does not accurately describe the pay model.
You got to be joking if you don't understand why. There isn't any other business sector that can get away with advertising their products are free when they are not. However, I would guess the biggest thing that would come out of this investigation would be to require companies to include a link that has a disclaimer on what is free and what is not.
did you pay for the game? no? then it is free. The candy store example is the same thing, but you ignored that. Not all the candy is free, so is the ad "Free Candy" in valid? Of course not.
Next you will be complaining that limited "Free Trials" is a scam too...
Then it will be "Shareware" is a scam...
I have no problem with the F2P description any more than I do Shareware. But I do have an issue with people who just want everything for free and complain about it if EVERYTHING isn't free. If you don't like it, don't play it. If you can't control you spending on optional items (seperate from the "free" stuff), don't play it. Don't try and act stupid that you don't understand that the game is free, but they offer other things that they charge for that will go with the "free" part of the game.
I see nothing wrong with the Federal Trade Commision regulating F2P models, which mostly come from Asia as front-ends to the next generation of gaming scams. Just like we have Pop Ups and deal with pop up blockers along with spyware and adware, you can be sure equivalent systems of scamming exist in games...
Specifically, Botting in Video Games along with creating super-cheap, ran down F2P models to programs designed to syphon money rather than actually create a legitimate and valuing entertainment package.
There is no difference between someone spamming my inbox saying "Click here, you've won 1 million dollars" and "here is a free trial to some no-name F2P game from somewhere in Asia"
in both when you enter the domain of the issuer (a web site or a game program), the scam begins which puts the user at risk in many ways.
Granted, this does not prove true for every F2P game out there, but for a GREAT majority, it can be argued the game is about taking as much money to generate the experience rather than creating a product where its purchase is seperate from the experience.
An argument like this holds up in court...and I can easilly make a case under Depraved Indifference to file suit on such companies, their personnel and affiliates who are all in on it together....and I can use the players who have been blinded into saying "If you don't like it, gtfo" as a measure to claim that such blindness is a factor as to an addiction generated by the owners attempting to push such products onto them...
Really, the majority of gamers I've come across start with average intelligence and abilities prior to playing games. When a lot of these players enter games....they become vegetables and while many P2P games claim agreements for 18+ personnel, most F2P agreements are claimed for those 13 years or older with a wide open door. Of course there are many who are younger....but there are F2P games out there where the user agreement is not part of the game itself (which is actually illegal in Europe and the US)
All EULAs must be included as part of the software as your "legal copy" of the agreement. No Legal Copy = No agreement. That copy must be under your possession. So far each instance of this has held up in court and survived contract law.
I see nothing wrong with the Federal Trade Commision regulating F2P models, which mostly come from Asia as front-ends to the next generation of gaming scams. Just like we have Pop Ups and deal with pop up blockers along with spyware and adware, you can be sure equivalent systems of scamming exist in games...
Specifically, Botting in Video Games along with creating super-cheap, ran down F2P models to programs designed to syphon money rather than actually create a legitimate and valuing entertainment package.
There is no difference between someone spamming my inbox saying "Click here, you've won 1 million dollars" and "here is a free trial to some no-name F2P game from somewhere in Asia"
in both when you enter the domain of the issuer (a web site or a game program), the scam begins which puts the user at risk in many ways.
Granted, this does not prove true for every F2P game out there, but for a GREAT majority, it can be argued the game is about taking as much money to generate the experience rather than creating a product where its purchase is seperate from the experience.
An argument like this holds up in court...and I can easilly make a case under Depraved Indifference to file suit on such companies, their personnel and affiliates who are all in on it together....and I can use the players who have been blinded into saying "If you don't like it, gtfo" as a measure to claim that such blindness is a factor as to an addiction generated by the owners attempting to push such products onto them...
Really, the majority of gamers I've come across start with average intelligence and abilities prior to playing games. When a lot of these players enter games....they become vegetables and while many P2P games claim agreements for 18+ personnel, most F2P agreements are claimed for those 13 years or older with a wide open door. Of course there are many who are younger....but there are F2P games out there where the user agreement is not part of the game itself (which is actually illegal in Europe and the US)
All EULAs must be included as part of the software as your "legal copy" of the agreement. No Legal Copy = No agreement. That copy must be under your possession. So far each instance of this has held up in court and survived contract law.
EULAs written by lawyers ask children to click on them acknowledging that they understand the terms of use. This, imo, is unconsionable. Children cannot understand what they are allegedly agreeing to. Many of the terms refer to the use of a parent's credit card. One FTP game had children agree that any use of the credit card was "authorized." To be quite blunt, children aren't able to made that decision...and they should not be asked to. In contrast another FTP game has parents make all the financial decisions/transactions. Children are not asked to agree to the EULA, they are told to get a parent.
Some of the games appear to exploit a child's naivety intentionally to access parental funds. If that is in fact the case. It should...and will be addressed by law enforcement agencies like the FTC.
Richard this has been a long time coming as complaints about virtual item sales/licensing have been piling up, and law-suits have been mounting. Also, games like online gambling are extensively regulated and have repeatedly been in the news. If you're not aware of this history, I'd encourage you to do some research.
P.S. Consumers and their advocates have repeatedly talked to service providers about the manner in which virtual economies can--and often do--side-step consumer rights legislation. This screams for intervention...intervention that would not be necessary if certain companies held themselves to some very basic ethical standards.
Be careful what you wish for. Typically if you let the government stick their toe in the door they will kick it open and be eating Cheetos on your couch before you know it ;-)
and sometimes if you don't let them through your door you leave it open to even more unsavoury and unscrupulous dealers.
saying don't let the government in, in the way this quote suggests, in cases of regulation is really saying be against of any type of policing versus dishonest misrepresentation and exploitation.
I hope we can all see how ridiculous that is?
I certainly don't trust the corperations to play fair, and I don't see any civilian movements or indie web sites (including this one) doing anything to raise consumer awareness and fight for the little man in this industry. Maybe if a gaming site or two decided to step up and put integrity before advertising slots from F2P corps the government would decide that the industry can self regulate and back off.
As it is the gaming internet is a mess of shill sites and paid off opinion formers held to ransom by the same corperations that want to push commercial agendas. I for one, in this case, welcome the inolvement in the defining and policing of an industry that has proven itself too corrupt and greedy to police itself.
cant say ive agreed with many post that ive seen by you vesavius BUT i whole-heartedly agree with this one !
i cant believe some people are missing the entire point and keep spamming tis parent responsiblility blah blah...
this makes me think of a tv ad i see where some corporate douche is letting a little kid pick up easter eggs and putting em on the table , the suit then takes most of the eggs claiming an eggmanagement fee lol ...
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Be careful what you wish for. Typically if you let the government stick their toe in the door they will kick it open and be eating Cheetos on your couch before you know it ;-)
and sometimes if you don't let them through your door you leave it open to even more unsavoury and unscrupulous dealers.
saying don't let the government in, in the way this quote suggests, in cases of regulation is really saying be against of any type of policing versus dishonest misrepresentation and exploitation.
I hope we can all see how ridiculous that is?
I certainly don't trust the corperations to play fair, and I don't see any civilian movements or indie web sites (including this one) doing anything to raise consumer awareness and fight for the little man in this industry. Maybe if a gaming site or two decided to step up and put integrity before advertising slots from F2P corps the government would decide that the industry can self regulate and back off.
As it is the gaming internet is a mess of shill sites and paid off opinion formers held to ransom by the same corperations that want to push commercial agendas. I for one, in this case, welcome the inolvement in the defining and policing of an industry that has proven itself too corrupt and greedy to police itself.
cant say ive agreed with many post that ive seen by you vesavius BUT i whole-heartedly agree with this one !
i cant believe some people are missing the entire point and keep spamming tis parent responsiblility blah blah...
this makes me think of a tv ad i see where some corporate douche is letting a little kid pick up easter eggs and putting em on the table , the suit then takes most of the eggs claiming an eggmanagement fee lol ...
Well, my question would be why the hell wasnt that kid's parent ther eto stop him from taking their eggs?
Thats the point YOU keep missing. What the companies are doing may not be ethical, but then again eithe ris like 90% of what any company in any type of business does. Theyre about making profit, not being ethical, and it is certainly not their responisbility to teach your child some common sense.
On the other hand it IS the responsibility of the parents to teach their child such things. Just look at it like this. Would a responsible parent toss their kid out the front door for the first time in their lives and just say "go have fun" without bothering to educate them on possible dangers, for example looking before crossing a street so you dont get hit by a car.
Essentially what some of you are saying should happen is parents should be allowed to toss their kid out the front door, and then someone else be held accountable (such as the car manufacturer, or the city for building the road) when their kid runs out in front of moving traffic and gets hit because they had no idea what they were supposed to do. Youre basically asking for the government to step in and take each of our kids 1 by 1 and teach them how to cross the street properly because youre not willing to do it yourself as a parent should.
At least in the case of overseas to US "F2P" games, the US has every right to investigate and levy regulations on foreign service providers. And yes, the US gov't has jurisdiction over all financial transactions going in and out of the US, which is how they have been targeting online gambling (through the CC companies).
Guess what? It is not anything new. The US regulates the import/sale of just about everything from foreign suppliers, and "online entertainment products and services" are nothing different. It is just that they have not been regulated yet.
Instead of an online game, say it was a foreign based website selling a download of any movie for 5 cents, without regards to copyright, as an overt business. Would the US govt be right in taking action to shut that off inside the US? Yes, to project the rights of the copyright owners. Or what if they were selling kiddie porn, or meth manufacturing videos? Yup.
Now instead of that, the Gov't may look at overseas based "F2Ps" that may or may not violate consumer protection laws in the US. Frankly, it is about time they do.
Although I generally think "F2P" games are a scam to begin with, undoubtedly there are some that would meet the definitions for one or more kinds of fraud or misrepresentation of goods or services offered.
And if they get slammed, so much the better for everyone.
Be careful what you wish for. Typically if you let the government stick their toe in the door they will kick it open and be eating Cheetos on your couch before you know it ;-)
and sometimes if you don't let them through your door you leave it open to even more unsavoury and unscrupulous dealers.
saying don't let the government in, in the way this quote suggests, in cases of regulation is really saying be against of any type of policing versus dishonest misrepresentation and exploitation.
I hope we can all see how ridiculous that is?
I certainly don't trust the corperations to play fair, and I don't see any civilian movements or indie web sites (including this one) doing anything to raise consumer awareness and fight for the little man in this industry. Maybe if a gaming site or two decided to step up and put integrity before advertising slots from F2P corps the government would decide that the industry can self regulate and back off.
As it is the gaming internet is a mess of shill sites and paid off opinion formers held to ransom by the same corperations that want to push commercial agendas. I for one, in this case, welcome the inolvement in the defining and policing of an industry that has proven itself too corrupt and greedy to police itself.
cant say ive agreed with many post that ive seen by you vesavius BUT i whole-heartedly agree with this one !
i cant believe some people are missing the entire point and keep spamming tis parent responsiblility blah blah...
this makes me think of a tv ad i see where some corporate douche is letting a little kid pick up easter eggs and putting em on the table , the suit then takes most of the eggs claiming an eggmanagement fee lol ...
Well, my question would be why the hell wasnt that kid's parent ther eto stop him from taking their eggs?
Thats the point YOU keep missing. What the companies are doing may not be ethical, but then again eithe ris like 90% of what any company in any type of business does. Theyre about making profit, not being ethical, and it is certainly not their responisbility to teach your child some common sense.
NO you are not getting the point, as a parent im very careful of what my child does and what he plays with and whom etc etc , those of us saying responsibility is not something only a few (parents) should shoulder, its something EVRYONE SHOULD SHOULDER!
You dont have to be a rocket scientist to see that evry single action we take both as parent, humans being affects those around us and even those we dont know , kinda like it in the movie where the kid starts the pay it forward thing . This is evenmore so when it comes to big companies, they shouldnt be allowed to use legal mumbo jumbo to essentially put aside comon sense, responsibility for their actions and even to make naive poeple like you believe they are right to do so.
Companies have to long been putting aside ethics, morality and RESPONSIBILITY for their actions (like when a car company decides not to do a recall on a defective product becuase it cheaper to settle in court with the few people who do sue them etc etc )
On the other hand it IS the responsibility of the parents to teach their child such things. Just look at it like this. Would a responsible parent toss their kid out the front door for the first time in their lives and just say "go have fun" without bothering to educate them on possible dangers, for example looking before crossing a street so you dont get hit by a car.
Yes it the parents responsibilty to teach their kids and no one is saying otherwise and yes some parent shouldnt be parents and this is why we have child services or (dpg where i live) .
The rest of what you say here is just plain stupid, your taking one small point blowing it out of proportion and ignoring the real issue! Hell by what you sayin here we could infer that on issues of drugs you would be agreable to making it all legal and taxable and it would be up to the citizens to be "smarter" and "responsible enough" to know better than to use any.
Essentially what some of you are saying should happen is parents should be allowed to toss their kid out the front door, and then someone else be held accountable (such as the car manufacturer, or the city for building the road) when their kid runs out in front of moving traffic and gets hit because they had no idea what they were supposed to do. Youre basically asking for the government to step in and take each of our kids 1 by 1 and teach them how to cross the street properly because youre not willing to do it yourself as a parent should.
No im not saying that AT ALL im saying if a kid does look before crossing the steet but maybe not quite as good as he should have and then gets run over by an irresponsible speeding driver thats late to work, that driver then should be accountable for his action . He shouldnt have the right to claim its only the kids fault and its the parents fault for not raising and teaching the child properly.
Its funny but i use to use the "its the parent that should... blah blah" excuse atleast untill i became a parent myself. its funny how being responsible for another life that you created makes you grow up and start thinking about YOUR actions AND how it impacts OTHERS instead of being selfish and sticking your head in the sand becuase its just more convienent and easy
I'll say it again counting on big companies to "police" themselves has been a huge failure, just look at what happend with the banks in the usa and how they had to be bailed out , just look at how obesity (and all the ADULT related problems that go with it) in KIDS is affecting the usa.
Youll want us to believe it the peoples fault our supermarkets are selling us crap that been proccesed up tha wazu as "healthy",
meh its funny how some people want others to take all the responsibility but try to avoid it like the plague when it fact WE ALL SHOULD BE cuase this world mate is what you and i AND THE BIG COMPANIES make of it !!
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
did you pay for the game? no? then it is free. The candy store example is the same thing, but you ignored that. Not all the candy is free, so is the ad "Free Candy" in valid? Of course not.
The store does not advertise out front "FREE CANDY" and its not generally referred to as the 'Free Candy Store'. Usually they put a sign on the candy bowl that quite accurately notes it is a sample. Everything else in the store has a price tag on it.
Here are a few questions I'd have for providers of F2P (i.e. RMT) games:
Do you really ask minors to click on EULAs that are written by your lawyers using language written by and for adults?
Do you really accept credit card transactions from minors without having a mechanism for card holder validation?
Do you really "sell" "items" at an RMT "shop" and then claim that no one has actually purchased anything?
Do you sell limited licenses to use virtual services but disguise this in language that is misleading to the customer?
If you "sell" a virtual item, and it doesn't function as advertised, do you refuse the customer a refund?
If you "sell" a virtual item, and then immediately thereafter delete or devalue it, do you refuse the customer a refund?
Do you have people purchase a random chance of winning a virtual item without following the regulations for lotteries and sweepstakes?
Do you really think that a EULA is a legally binding contract when it can be changed at any time by the service provider without any notification to the customer?
Did a company rep really say that people are purchasing virtual land in your game, and then did you turn around and claim that ownership was never implied?
Did you take millions of dollars from customers via some or all of the above practices, and did these customers then barrage us with countless complaints by telephone, fax and/or email so that we now have to waste tax payers dollars investigating you?
Do I think the FTC might have similar questions. LOL, yeah. I think they might
did you pay for the game? no? then it is free. The candy store example is the same thing, but you ignored that. Not all the candy is free, so is the ad "Free Candy" in valid? Of course not.
The store does not advertise out front "FREE CANDY" and its not generally referred to as the 'Free Candy Store'. Usually they put a sign on the candy bowl that quite accurately notes it is a sample. Everything else in the store has a price tag on it.
thanks for making my point. even if they had a sign out front that said in 10 foot letters "Free Candy" it doesn't change the fact that only some of it is free. You have gone to XYZ company (candy store) they have an ad in big neon letters "F2P!" (Free Candy!). You download the game and play for FREE (get some free candy). That same company XYZ sells other stuff too (more candy). Is the free play any less free (still free candy)? no. Is the other product they sell optional (still all the other candy in the store with a price tag)? yes. They want you to come in and have some free candy in the hopes that some folk will come back and by other candy in the store. Same with the F2P, the only difference is....none.
I play Uncharted Waters Online. I don't reject F2P model in it's entirity, and not all F2P models are created equal. I think the name is misleading, and I will stand by that opinion. It's right up there with freecreditreport.com. It's a scam to call it that even if technically you could get something for free, that's not the intention.
parrotpholk-Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better.
Those F2P with cash shops that sells items based on chance are basically online casinos (with no payout). Just keep pouring in real cash for a chance at getting something. Case in point, Atlantica's boxes. That's gambling. Those needs to be stopped.
Then there are those F2P that offers real content that can be unlocked with cash. In LoTRO, DDO, and Wizard101 people are buying content in game. So it's like buying a DLC for a single player game. Those F2P's are doing legitimate business.
"I am the harbinger of hope. I am the sword of the righteous. And to all who hear my words, I say this: What you give to this Empire, I shall give back unto you." -Empress Jamyl Sarum I
thanks for making my point. even if they had a sign out front that said in 10 foot letters "Free Candy" it doesn't change the fact that only some of it is free. You have gone to XYZ company (candy store) they have an ad in big neon letters "F2P!" (Free Candy!). You download the game and play for FREE (get some free candy). That same company XYZ sells other stuff too (more candy). Is the free play any less free (still free candy)? no. Is the other product they sell optional (still all the other candy in the store with a price tag)? yes. They want you to come in and have some free candy in the hopes that some folk will come back and by other candy in the store. Same with the F2P, the only difference is....none.
For the 2nd time:
Stores do not put out " FREE CANDY " signs, and if they did it would be stated somewhere what is and what is not free, or what must be done to make it free.
You also seem to be confused about what F2P companies are advertising. They are not advertising that their items (candy) are free, but that playing (shopping) is free.
Is shopping simply the act of walking in the store and looking at items or is it the act of purchasing an item?
i.e.
Is playing simply the act of logging onto a server or is it 100% access to items, quests, areas, or is it somewhere between the 2 extremes?
If it is somewhere between, then wouldn't that technically be a free trial or a sample?
it's a simple solution really, FTP games change their ads and such to Game Lifetime Free Trial, NOT Unlimited free trial as that would suggest the same as Free to Play.
Imagine you're playing a game of online chess, and some popup comes along and offers you an extra pawn or knight. Or if you're playing online poker and you get a message offering you a free card of your choice. It just ruins anything you attempt to create.
Truthfully it's one of the more repugnant forms capitalism I've ever encountered. Why? Because the vast majority of targets here are children and teenagers, and the areas they're in are fantasy and fiction. Imagine an ice cream truck rolls into your street, sells ice cream to all the kids, then tells them unless they pay double their ice cream will melt before they can finish it. Sickening.
Comments
No you are wrong. The game is 100% free to play, There are just add-ons that you can pay for if you choose. You all keep bringing up "targeting kids/minors" What is a kid/minor doing with access to your CC??? That is the real thing that needs to be addressed. If you are dumb enough to
a) Give your kid your CC unsupervised.
b) Give your kid unsupervised/unmonitored internet access.
c) A smart phone without locking it down (I would also argure a cell phone period).
d) all of the above
Then stop complaining about F2P. You bought it on yourself. Advertiving had marketed to childeren for DECADES! This is nothing new! The fact that you have no control over you own child isn't the industies fault. It is yours. It has been this way forever! Advertise "Free Candy", but only certain candy is free. There is other candy in the store that you can buy, but there is free candy if you want it. You don't have to buy any candy to get the "Free Candy", but just because you were dumb enough to let your kid go in with your CC to get the "Free Candy", don't blame the candy store if your kids buys $1,400 worth of extra candy.
This whole "I want it ALL 100% free" crowd are just a bunch on spoiled whiners who need to grow up and see the REAL world.
Unfortunately, the US govt thinks it is your mommy. Thus they have to get involved whether your actual mommy is doing her job or not stopping you from buying things you werent supposed to. The FTC needs to stay out of this and let the parents pay for the consequences of not parenting.
I do think it's kind of odd in terms of how greedy businesses have advertised in the world to date. The FTC allows all kinds of lies out of the advertisers' mouths, why pick on "Free to Play" games all of a sudden?
It's because, of course, it hit the news in a ngative way. If we had the same headlines about "free cell phones", which never were free, for example, but always required a contract, then cell phone retailers would have been "investigated" too.
The FTC was never about "free trade", in either sense of the word. It is about regulation the way the politicians in office see fit to regulate (That's is why it's so important to know your candidates intimately before you go to the polls to vote. Choosing who gets put in our offices starts long before the candidates are chosen, long before, and if you wait until you go to the ballot box, you have already given up most of your power as a voter.) Fortunately, much of that is beneficial, but a lot of it is biased and wrong and actually limits captalism, stifles innovation, and allows poorly run busineeses to keep doing bad business long passed their prime. Of course, some of these laws have nothing to do with the FTC.
Personally, I think the "F2P" model is a legitimate one, but it is misleading in its name and I do believe that was intended by the majority of publishers who adopted it. They want to hide behind the statement "We don't require a subscription for you to play, so it's not misleading." If you don't intend to mislead then, say up front that much of the game will be locked to you unless you pay for something, don't hide that fact to be discovered after someone starts playing. The good publishers are doing this. I think they would also do well to choose another name for this type of model and promote it, one other than "F2P". "NS" for "No Subscription" works for me.
Have played: Everquest, Asheron's Call, Horizons, Everquest2, World of Warcraft, Lord of the Rings Online, Warhammer, Age of Conan, Darkfall
Well, I agree with that but a smurf game where a 8 year old kid can spend 1400 bucks is taking things too far.
Yes, it is the parents responsibility but that is highway robbery aimed at kids. The other 2 cases are just silly and the parents should just pay it but the #¤%& smurf game should be taken out of it's misery.
Most F2P games on any media us perfectly fine but we got one case that is a scam, that is more than I payed for my IRL furniture. But the retailer should really have nipped this in the bud, the publisher do have some responsibilities to the consumers.
It would suck if one scamming game would affect the whole genre and stop F2P MMOs as well.
and sometimes if you don't let them through your door you leave it open to even more unsavoury and unscrupulous dealers.
saying don't let the government in, in the way this quote suggests, in cases of regulation is really saying be against of any type of policing versus dishonest misrepresentation and exploitation.
I hope we can all see how ridiculous that is?
I certainly don't trust the corperations to play fair, and I don't see any civilian movements or indie web sites (including this one) doing anything to raise consumer awareness and fight for the little man in this industry. Maybe if a gaming site or two decided to step up and put integrity before advertising slots from F2P corps the government would decide that the industry can self regulate and back off.
As it is the gaming internet is a mess of shill sites and paid off opinion formers held to ransom by the same corperations that want to push commercial agendas. I for one, in this case, welcome the inolvement in the defining and policing of an industry that has proven itself too corrupt and greedy to police itself.
I think the problem lies in the "automatic charges" type features.... where a service automaticaly stores details about your credit card (or phone account) and bills you whenever you make a "purchase" without any real intervention required on your part...... combine that with stupid practices like 15 minute "password caching" on parental control features....and deceptive practices that make it unclear to kids that they are making REAL $$ purchases rather then just playing with pretend money and you've got a huge window for abuse.
The service companies could fix this easly if they wanted to by requiring a user to enter physical details from thier Credit Card ... (or phone account statement).... EVERY SINGLE time they make a purcase. That would nip 90% of this in the bud...but alot of unscrupulous companies don't want to do that...because they count on unauthorized purchases as part of thier revenue stream.... they just figure if the charges are small enough, most users will just let them go. Just like insurance companies put up alot of unneccesary red tape and hurdles in filing a claim or getting treatments pre-aproved, they count on the fact that a certain percentage of people (usualy the most vulnerable) aren't going to have the will-power or fortitude to jump through all the hoops to claim what they are rightfully entitled to and will just give up instead.
Are those add-ons part of the game? Yes. Can I have them for free? No. The game is not 100% free to play. And I'm not saying I want it all free, nor am I saying the f2p model or games are bad. I'm just saying that as a description of the pay model, 'free to play' does not accurately describe the pay model.
You got to be joking if you don't understand why. There isn't any other business sector that can get away with advertising their products are free when they are not. However, I would guess the biggest thing that would come out of this investigation would be to require companies to include a link that has a disclaimer on what is free and what is not.
did you pay for the game? no? then it is free. The candy store example is the same thing, but you ignored that. Not all the candy is free, so is the ad "Free Candy" in valid? Of course not.
Next you will be complaining that limited "Free Trials" is a scam too...
Then it will be "Shareware" is a scam...
I have no problem with the F2P description any more than I do Shareware. But I do have an issue with people who just want everything for free and complain about it if EVERYTHING isn't free. If you don't like it, don't play it. If you can't control you spending on optional items (seperate from the "free" stuff), don't play it. Don't try and act stupid that you don't understand that the game is free, but they offer other things that they charge for that will go with the "free" part of the game.
I see nothing wrong with the Federal Trade Commision regulating F2P models, which mostly come from Asia as front-ends to the next generation of gaming scams. Just like we have Pop Ups and deal with pop up blockers along with spyware and adware, you can be sure equivalent systems of scamming exist in games...
Specifically, Botting in Video Games along with creating super-cheap, ran down F2P models to programs designed to syphon money rather than actually create a legitimate and valuing entertainment package.
There is no difference between someone spamming my inbox saying "Click here, you've won 1 million dollars" and "here is a free trial to some no-name F2P game from somewhere in Asia"
in both when you enter the domain of the issuer (a web site or a game program), the scam begins which puts the user at risk in many ways.
Granted, this does not prove true for every F2P game out there, but for a GREAT majority, it can be argued the game is about taking as much money to generate the experience rather than creating a product where its purchase is seperate from the experience.
An argument like this holds up in court...and I can easilly make a case under Depraved Indifference to file suit on such companies, their personnel and affiliates who are all in on it together....and I can use the players who have been blinded into saying "If you don't like it, gtfo" as a measure to claim that such blindness is a factor as to an addiction generated by the owners attempting to push such products onto them...
Really, the majority of gamers I've come across start with average intelligence and abilities prior to playing games. When a lot of these players enter games....they become vegetables and while many P2P games claim agreements for 18+ personnel, most F2P agreements are claimed for those 13 years or older with a wide open door. Of course there are many who are younger....but there are F2P games out there where the user agreement is not part of the game itself (which is actually illegal in Europe and the US)
All EULAs must be included as part of the software as your "legal copy" of the agreement. No Legal Copy = No agreement. That copy must be under your possession. So far each instance of this has held up in court and survived contract law.
would love to see references and actual cases.
EULAs written by lawyers ask children to click on them acknowledging that they understand the terms of use. This, imo, is unconsionable. Children cannot understand what they are allegedly agreeing to. Many of the terms refer to the use of a parent's credit card. One FTP game had children agree that any use of the credit card was "authorized." To be quite blunt, children aren't able to made that decision...and they should not be asked to. In contrast another FTP game has parents make all the financial decisions/transactions. Children are not asked to agree to the EULA, they are told to get a parent.
Some of the games appear to exploit a child's naivety intentionally to access parental funds. If that is in fact the case. It should...and will be addressed by law enforcement agencies like the FTC.
Richard this has been a long time coming as complaints about virtual item sales/licensing have been piling up, and law-suits have been mounting. Also, games like online gambling are extensively regulated and have repeatedly been in the news. If you're not aware of this history, I'd encourage you to do some research.
P.S. Consumers and their advocates have repeatedly talked to service providers about the manner in which virtual economies can--and often do--side-step consumer rights legislation. This screams for intervention...intervention that would not be necessary if certain companies held themselves to some very basic ethical standards.
cant say ive agreed with many post that ive seen by you vesavius BUT i whole-heartedly agree with this one !
i cant believe some people are missing the entire point and keep spamming tis parent responsiblility blah blah...
this makes me think of a tv ad i see where some corporate douche is letting a little kid pick up easter eggs and putting em on the table , the suit then takes most of the eggs claiming an eggmanagement fee lol ...
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Well, my question would be why the hell wasnt that kid's parent ther eto stop him from taking their eggs?
Thats the point YOU keep missing. What the companies are doing may not be ethical, but then again eithe ris like 90% of what any company in any type of business does. Theyre about making profit, not being ethical, and it is certainly not their responisbility to teach your child some common sense.
On the other hand it IS the responsibility of the parents to teach their child such things. Just look at it like this. Would a responsible parent toss their kid out the front door for the first time in their lives and just say "go have fun" without bothering to educate them on possible dangers, for example looking before crossing a street so you dont get hit by a car.
Essentially what some of you are saying should happen is parents should be allowed to toss their kid out the front door, and then someone else be held accountable (such as the car manufacturer, or the city for building the road) when their kid runs out in front of moving traffic and gets hit because they had no idea what they were supposed to do. Youre basically asking for the government to step in and take each of our kids 1 by 1 and teach them how to cross the street properly because youre not willing to do it yourself as a parent should.
At least in the case of overseas to US "F2P" games, the US has every right to investigate and levy regulations on foreign service providers. And yes, the US gov't has jurisdiction over all financial transactions going in and out of the US, which is how they have been targeting online gambling (through the CC companies).
Guess what? It is not anything new. The US regulates the import/sale of just about everything from foreign suppliers, and "online entertainment products and services" are nothing different. It is just that they have not been regulated yet.
Instead of an online game, say it was a foreign based website selling a download of any movie for 5 cents, without regards to copyright, as an overt business. Would the US govt be right in taking action to shut that off inside the US? Yes, to project the rights of the copyright owners. Or what if they were selling kiddie porn, or meth manufacturing videos? Yup.
Now instead of that, the Gov't may look at overseas based "F2Ps" that may or may not violate consumer protection laws in the US. Frankly, it is about time they do.
Although I generally think "F2P" games are a scam to begin with, undoubtedly there are some that would meet the definitions for one or more kinds of fraud or misrepresentation of goods or services offered.
And if they get slammed, so much the better for everyone.
I'll say it again counting on big companies to "police" themselves has been a huge failure, just look at what happend with the banks in the usa and how they had to be bailed out , just look at how obesity (and all the ADULT related problems that go with it) in KIDS is affecting the usa.
Youll want us to believe it the peoples fault our supermarkets are selling us crap that been proccesed up tha wazu as "healthy",
meh its funny how some people want others to take all the responsibility but try to avoid it like the plague when it fact WE ALL SHOULD BE cuase this world mate is what you and i AND THE BIG COMPANIES make of it !!
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
The store does not advertise out front "FREE CANDY" and its not generally referred to as the 'Free Candy Store'. Usually they put a sign on the candy bowl that quite accurately notes it is a sample. Everything else in the store has a price tag on it.
Here are a few questions I'd have for providers of F2P (i.e. RMT) games:
Do you really ask minors to click on EULAs that are written by your lawyers using language written by and for adults?
Do you really accept credit card transactions from minors without having a mechanism for card holder validation?
Do you really "sell" "items" at an RMT "shop" and then claim that no one has actually purchased anything?
Do you sell limited licenses to use virtual services but disguise this in language that is misleading to the customer?
If you "sell" a virtual item, and it doesn't function as advertised, do you refuse the customer a refund?
If you "sell" a virtual item, and then immediately thereafter delete or devalue it, do you refuse the customer a refund?
Do you have people purchase a random chance of winning a virtual item without following the regulations for lotteries and sweepstakes?
Do you really think that a EULA is a legally binding contract when it can be changed at any time by the service provider without any notification to the customer?
Did a company rep really say that people are purchasing virtual land in your game, and then did you turn around and claim that ownership was never implied?
Did you take millions of dollars from customers via some or all of the above practices, and did these customers then barrage us with countless complaints by telephone, fax and/or email so that we now have to waste tax payers dollars investigating you?
Do I think the FTC might have similar questions. LOL, yeah. I think they might
thanks for making my point. even if they had a sign out front that said in 10 foot letters "Free Candy" it doesn't change the fact that only some of it is free. You have gone to XYZ company (candy store) they have an ad in big neon letters "F2P!" (Free Candy!). You download the game and play for FREE (get some free candy). That same company XYZ sells other stuff too (more candy). Is the free play any less free (still free candy)? no. Is the other product they sell optional (still all the other candy in the store with a price tag)? yes. They want you to come in and have some free candy in the hopes that some folk will come back and by other candy in the store. Same with the F2P, the only difference is....none.
I play Uncharted Waters Online. I don't reject F2P model in it's entirity, and not all F2P models are created equal. I think the name is misleading, and I will stand by that opinion. It's right up there with freecreditreport.com. It's a scam to call it that even if technically you could get something for free, that's not the intention.
parrotpholk-Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better.
Those F2P with cash shops that sells items based on chance are basically online casinos (with no payout). Just keep pouring in real cash for a chance at getting something. Case in point, Atlantica's boxes. That's gambling. Those needs to be stopped.
Then there are those F2P that offers real content that can be unlocked with cash. In LoTRO, DDO, and Wizard101 people are buying content in game. So it's like buying a DLC for a single player game. Those F2P's are doing legitimate business.
"I am the harbinger of hope. I am the sword of the righteous. And to all who hear my words, I say this: What you give to this Empire, I shall give back unto you."
-Empress Jamyl Sarum I
For the 2nd time:
Stores do not put out " FREE CANDY " signs, and if they did it would be stated somewhere what is and what is not free, or what must be done to make it free.
You also seem to be confused about what F2P companies are advertising. They are not advertising that their items (candy) are free, but that playing (shopping) is free.
Is shopping simply the act of walking in the store and looking at items or is it the act of purchasing an item?
i.e.
Is playing simply the act of logging onto a server or is it 100% access to items, quests, areas, or is it somewhere between the 2 extremes?
If it is somewhere between, then wouldn't that technically be a free trial or a sample?
it's a simple solution really, FTP games change their ads and such to Game Lifetime Free Trial, NOT Unlimited free trial as that would suggest the same as Free to Play.
God I hate F2P MMOs.
Imagine you're playing a game of online chess, and some popup comes along and offers you an extra pawn or knight. Or if you're playing online poker and you get a message offering you a free card of your choice. It just ruins anything you attempt to create.
Truthfully it's one of the more repugnant forms capitalism I've ever encountered. Why? Because the vast majority of targets here are children and teenagers, and the areas they're in are fantasy and fiction. Imagine an ice cream truck rolls into your street, sells ice cream to all the kids, then tells them unless they pay double their ice cream will melt before they can finish it. Sickening.