Features

Pocket Gamer Court: Is it time for IAPs and free-to-play games to be regulated?

Free-to-go?

Pocket Gamer Court: Is it time for IAPs and free-to-play games to be regulated?
|

Has there ever been an area of more contention and controversy in the world of pocket gaming than free-to-play games and in-app purchases?

Regardless of your view on IAPs, questions have been raised as to whether they should be regulated by the powers that be so that the young and foolish can't rack up enormous bills.

Or should developers be left to their own devices to figure out the best way to monetise their hard work?

Two weeks ago we asked you these very questions. Here, Judge Jon (that's me) weighs up the arguments for, against, and somewhere in the middle.

Order! Court is in session.

For

PG reader st33d is firmly on the side of the regulators, it seems. "Saying the game is free and then charging you money is fraud," is his opening hardline statement.

"It's like advertising steak outside a restaurant and then when you get inside they don't actually sell it. That's illegal - you're required by law to describe your product faithfully."

Ah, yes, but what about if you get a quarter of your steak for free, and then you have the choice of paying for the rest, hmm? Maybe a little extra for some mustard. French beans. And what about the fries, hmm? I'm not sure where I was going with this analogy, but I do know I'm hungry.

Summer LaRose accepts that players and parents need to take a measure of responsibility for spending excessively on IAPs, but points out that "a lot of games have these random item packs or draws that basically amount to gambling," and so "should have the same regulations that gambling does."

This would mean age restrictions on playing with and purchasing such virtual items.

RockinIt believes that legislation on the labelling of games containing in-app purchases is required, but points to a very specific culprit - and it's not Apple's App Store. "It's the Google Play Store that needs sorting out where all they have is a tiny bit of greyed out writing which mentions in app purchases but doesn't actually state exactly how much these things cost."

Robert Green feels that free-to-play game developers need to be made more responsible for their micro-economies. "F2P apps are essentially retailers for their own IAP's," he points out, "and like all retailers, they have certain obligations as regards to making sure customers know what they're getting for their money."

Meanwhile, arosbooks takes a rather more extremist view of F2P. "It's disgusting and when the mobile gaming industry's morals are non-existent it's only regulation that can fight this cancer," they say.

If you thought that was heavy, the terms "banned completely," "deserve to suffer," and "virtual crack" are also employed.

Don't mince your words, fella!

Against

Oooooomonkey (did I spell that right?) thinks that all of this talk of regulation is nonsense. "I don't think it needs [to be] regulated, nobody's forced to buy IAP in games," he points out. "I suppose it's like holding your hand out in the street... If people are going to give you money why say no?"

An interesting analogy. Of course, some might argue that it's more like performing a card trick while your mate sneaks around and pinches the wallets.

StraightlineBoy takes a much wider view of the idea of IAP regulation. "This is a waste of time and the politicians should be fixing unemployment, education, crime etc, things that actually matter," he says. "I think the EU should do nothing and make people take responsibility for their actions."

Somewhere in the Middle

Jeff Moreira doesn't think that an independent regulator necessarily needs to get involved here. He reckons that it can all be solved with a little common sense from all involved.

"I guess the easiest way to fix it is to ALWAYS ask for a password permission for IAP," he says, before adding, "IMHO it's the parents responsibility to control what they children are doing so a password requirement for IAP could help to avoid these purchases."

Clint Weiss agrees with Jeff's more even-handed suggestion, including passwords. "If by regulation, you mean labelling the exact nature of the IAP in the app description, sure," he says. "I would, however, be opposed to restricting the exact nature of IAP... just accurate labelling and confirmation of intent to purchase are fine with me."

Indievortex believes that the onus should be on developers to show a few more scruples in their dealings rather than relying on firm legislation. "Making it clear to players when 'free' games contain IAP's is the right thing to do for developers," they say, claiming that anything less amounts to "aiming to suck players in with a hidden agenda to exploit them later."

But is it realistic or even fair to expect developers to shoulder the responsibility for that?

Final Judgement

This isn't a debate about whether IAPs and F2P are rubbish or not. These systems exist, and won't be going away any time soon.

This is a debate about how we protect the young, inexperienced, and just plain ignorant from racking up colossal app store bills due to a lack of labelling or outright sneaky practices from the more cynical developers.

There seems to be something approaching a consensus from you lot that there needs to be clearer and more explicit labelling of games that contain IAPs. What's more, there needs to be some kind of compulsory authentication system every time a purchase is initiated, so that kids can't accidentally spend hundreds of pounds on virtual hat stands.

With that in mind, we have to conclude that the legislation being proposed by the EU is a sensible idea. Bear in mind that these proposals aren't to ban or even necessarily to restrict what or how developers can charge.

Judge Jon's conclusion: yes, regulators should get involved with IAPs and free-to-play games. Court dismissed!

Jon Mundy
Jon Mundy
Jon is a consummate expert in adventure, action, and sports games. Which is just as well, as in real life he's timid, lazy, and unfit. It's amazing how these things even themselves out.