Google Won't Allow Games With In-App Purchases to Call Themselves "Free"

In fairness, isn't this a mandate from the EU, that 'free-to-play' can no longer apply to games with in-app purchases? I'm sure Google themselves would rather still advertise them as Free, and probably will continue to do so in markets outside of Europe.

A sensible regulation, just like 99% of EU regulations.

Despite what populists are trying to tell you about the size and shape of cucumbers.

A game can be free to play and have in-app purchases.

i quite agree free to play should be free to play or in old lingo Freeware . Today's free to play is more like a modified shareware where you really don't stop paying.

Now im not against free-to-play is done correct hell I love playing Firefall and spend my beans on subscriptions and fancy cosmetic items. but there are some so called free to play games that really really are pay to win or Pay to Progress. those ones i don't like.

I agree, these games aren't fun to play unless you're willing to spend € 40 - €100 on in-game upgrades. I had a paid version of Plants vs. Zombies that was missing all of the mini games and challenges of the original PC version but it was still a lot of fun to play. Then they released a 'free' version of the game which did include all the levels of the PC version. But every mini games and challenge level had to be unlocked by paying in-game coins. But even unlocking the cheapest level takes way more coins than you make on a single play through of all levels (and there's quite a few). I did a quick calculation and unlocking all mini games and challenge levels would've taken upwards of € 40 (probably more since some mini games have several levels you need to unlock). I would have paid €5 or maybe even €10 for the full game without a second thought but after making this calculation I immediately deleted the game and installed the one I had paid for earlier. I'm not willing to pay a price that greatly exceeds the price of the full PC game in the steam store (€4,99 for the GOTY edition). And I've noticed that the same thing is true for many of these 'free to play' games. Progress in these games without paying for in-game upgrades is either extremely slow or nearly impossible because of the way too high (artificially cranked up) difficulty level. Now I only install free games if there's a paid version (so you're basically installing a demo) because I've had it with these greedy developers.

And the EU is making sure that parents know that the games their kids are playing aren't really free.

I like this change and hope all "app stores" adopt it internationally. I like to think I am savvy enough that the change won't effect me much, but the misleading way that apps/games promote themselves is ridiculous. I spent the better part of an afternoon searching for a slot machine and blackjack game for my mom's tablet that just played off using regular ass video game currency that when (if) you run out, the game is over and you just start again.

Try searching for "free slot machine" on the google play store and let me know how that works for you. After looking at the ten thousandth "free" one that was just another gambling game where you buy credits with real money and it's rigged so you lose, I just gave up. I am not even sure how these apps are legal. They are literally worse than casino or online casino gambling because at least those are governed by some entity that enforces some kind of rules.

The examples you cite can definitely be found in F2P, but that is not the essence of what F2P is. The essence is lowering the bar of entry for your game to the point that it is almost non existent. Then players can pay what they want if they find value in the purchases. Now, some developers can and certainly have gotten pretty scamy when defining what that free experience is and have offered questionable value in their in app purchases. But there are also plenty of F2P games that aren't like that. And plenty that aren't casual either (Dota 2 being a pretty good example of both.)

And I would still say that having a lot of your content be free but then locking the best stuff behind a paywall (a la Giant Bomb) is something you would find in a F2P game.

@koolaid said:

That's not true. The problem with F2P games is the business model is based on hooking the player on a mechanic and then encouraging them to pay money to improve their experience. From the perspective of people reading this site, who are well informed about games, it might seem like a fair business model because they understand upfront what they're getting in to. However, the primary audience for these games are casual and usually only play the game in the first place because it's "free". Would those people have played the game if they were better informed? Google not allowing any game with in-app purchases to be listed or described as free is the right move, because those games are not really free--it's a hoodwink.

A model like GB isn't like that at all because all free content is complete and not explicitly designed to get you subscribe. To be doing anything similar they'd have to be doing things like making a series of videos where a portion were free and then the rest were subscriber only.

There allot off parents with iphone's with there credit card attached to there apple ID not knowing that there kids can buy idiotic stuff in free to play games. Because off apples stupid account creation policy.

I am playing a "ftp" game right now, which I might as well call a p2win game if I'm being honest. The thing about the game is that it's a collectible card game where you can get cards through progression or through events, but those cards will never be as good as what you can get through premium forms of recruitment. For the longest time, recruitment consisted of one option, 11 cards for 30 bucks. I never purchased, but it's an insidious cycle of having events that require cards from the premium recruitment to get better results. Yes, you can be like me and not pay anything, but you'll be better off and be able to be on better teams if you buy the packs and get the better cards.

Just so everyone knows, I'm talking about X-Men: Battle of the Atom. The thing is, the game is barely a game, but the desire to get new cards and see what new events will bring is really strong. On the other side, they reveal no information about the odds of pulling the "good" cards from the packs. So you're stuck there and you don't even know if the pack will give you 11 crappy cards or some really good cards. Which is why I don't pay. But you wouldn't believe the threads saying "I spent 200 on packs and only got one HR!" or something similar.

F2P games are a joke. I think the least they could do is post the odds of pulling certain items, or cards in my case, from the pay packs. Otherwise it's barely better than buying lottery tickets, except most tickets have odds printed on them! So a straight lottery is probably better and more honest.

Thank you for demonstrating there are right ways to do things. As I said in another comment, I've no problems with them clarifying free from not-really-free, but the simple protection measure you mentioned - which you can also use on Android devices - is a great way to prevent overspending or accidental purchases.

He's right, though. I was born a thirty-year-old man and I have never aged.

Today I noticed a sequel to one of my favorite iPhone games recently came out. Sword & Poker. It's now made by Konami and it's "free." Free is now a word I fear because it usually means "pay to play" or "pay to win." Reading the reviews of the game, my fears were correct. It's IAP hell. This is a game I'd easily pay $10 play, and now it a free game that I refuse to download and try.

At this point I literally only get an app store game if it's been recommended to me by others or online. There are some great games released, but even on the paid lists there's a whole lot of crap that floods the market and climbs the rankings.

As for the practise of finding games on the app-store because of the overwhelming number of free to play titles. I prefer to pay upfront, but hunting for such games became a chore for me.

Looking up the "in app purchases"- section for every darn game; for the sole purpose of finding a game that wasn’t skinner boxed, I eventually gave up.

So, yes, this would be the European Commission doing me a favour.

Looking for a new game shouldn’t feel like work.

hah, good. i mean, granted, i've been around long enough that i know that free to play translates to "shit game with microtransactions shoved in yr face" 9 times out of 10, but a lot of consumers don't.

I'm just glad that looking through apps on google play will give less of a headache now.

@hailinel: Well, EA Mythic got shutdown and I would've preferred a game which would be more like the older DK games, but at least they voices of the fans have been heard.

I'm just saying. Either way, it's fine if you enjoy it, but its design justifiably ennraged many fans of the original Dungeon Keeper games. Anyone looking for something like those did not get that in this.

And like I said 'iirc', I apparently did not recall that correctly.

@hailinel: whatever, I've played it for a while and I'm content with it, what does it matter how long it's been out?

Dungeon Keeper Mobile hasn't been out for a year yet. It was only released last December.

@hailinel: Fine for me, I've been playing for it about a year iirc and I don't mind being slow. Can't say the same thing about Clash of Clans, I can't progress without spending money, I haven't spent any money, but I can't do much more with that thing. It's a base building and base attacking game. It's not great, but I play it during short breaks at work. I should bring my 3ds, but I barely have any games which I can play for 5 minutes and make any worthwhile progress. Here I can send my imps to upgrade something. I'm not doing much anymore for a long time, since every upgrade and such takes multiple days, I don't mind though.

You could, but the amount of time it takes to make any sort of progress is heinously slow and meant to drive players to the "optional" pay items. It's not worth playing the game for free because the entire experience is terrible.

The European Commission: Looking out for you!

I'd argue their stance on GMOs and irradiated food is one of the bad approaches. On the one hand, you can take a reasoned and cautious approach, and arrive at conclusions as researchers publish their results. Instead, many have already made their conclusions (GMOs are dangerous or at least not as nutritious as unmodified foods) and when all of the highest quality studies marked by global peer-review agree that this is NOT the case, we still have an EU that believes or fears it is. Some quality research undoubtedly happens in the territories, but there are also now high profile cases of inexcusably biased researchers producing dubious, even fraudulent results in order to support the belief. This sort of bogus "science" is incredibly harmful, and affects public perception regardless of the veracity. Look at the vaccination/Autism scandal: Andrew Wakefield committed fraud in fudging his results to support the proposed link. Still the media reported on the study, still people heard it and believed it. Vaccination rates dropped in the US and Europe, and several epidemics are suspected of being directly or indirectly related to this 100% bogus notion that was presented under the guise of "science." Even today, with all of the dirty details of the original study being laid bare, and Wakefield being relegated to the fringe of pseudo-science alongside chupacabras and dowsing, the damage is done. The belief that vaccines cause autism is widespread and enduring.

They can label it as a front end with a shop inside, which it basically is.

As for the micro transactions, which really is called dlc, where have you been since 2008?

That debate is still ongoing. Several pissed gamers crying foul at what they deem as held back content for an extra money grab, content that should have been included in the game from the start.

Like in Mega Man 9, where several cosmetics were sold for cash, when in earlier titles they could be earned by means of exploration and/or mastering the game; finding a hidden spot, beating the whole game without losing a single life etc.

It is seldom, though, to see a 50$ game holding back the main story/path of the game.

Publishers that have tried it have often been heavily criticised for it.

To be fair, the system Apple's iOS already has in place (a simple password required to purchase) already makes it nigh-impossible for my son to buy anything without my password. He's been playing games on them since he was three and we have yet to see an accidental purchase.

Based on your comment I would bet you are US based.

That fear of everything govermnent strikes me as really weird. This thing is something to protect customers (maybe from their own stupidity, but that doesn't make it wrong). There is nothing wrong with that.

And to claim that something aimed to protect customers might/will lead to content cencorship is at best a stretch. There isn't always an evil agenda behind everything. (Also I really can't follow your argument that this would lead to cencorship).

I'm torn, mainly because I just flat out don't know anyone who's been fooled or didn't realize they were spending money on these things. Even my six year old son understands how these things operate and even if he didn't, he doesn't know the passwords required to be able to spend money.

My question is if they are no longer allowed to label the game "Free" how are they going to label it? Also what do we do about retail games that also include microtransactions? Are they still allowed to list their game at $49.99? Or should they be forced to label it as "$49.99 + Microtransactions"?

Again, like I said I'm torn. I like to see the consumer being protected but I also believe that we are becoming to quick to blame "the industry" to relieve ourselves of personal responsibility.

I like that Apple defended itself with an upcoming feature...

Which means that they do jack shit about it atm.

I don't see what's so bad about DK. First of all, you can totally play the game without spending any money and still progress. I can't say that about Clash of Clans for example which DK is imitating like crazy. And this is nothing new. Just because fans of DK saw those in-game stores for the first time when they tried DK does not mean this is something heinous that EA invented or whatever. It's alright in comparison to other games. As I said before, you can continue playing it and still get progress without spending one dime.

A challenge to the GiantBomb community: find a free klondike game on the android app store that doesn't eat your soul.

I found one, eventually, after going through through 50+ games of klondike. Developers have no qualms with throwing fullscreen ads at you while in the middle of your game. This new google rule doesn't fix that.

I wish there was a way to filter "truly free" games on the android app store. I don't mind ads in my games but fullscreen ads in particular are very annoying.

The klondike game I found was called "Smooth Klondike" by the way. It's regular ass klondike, no clutter of menu's, has landscape support and no ads surprisingly.

cc @patrickklepek

Just a small correction, it's Neven Mimica, not Mimic, which is a fine 1997 movie.

Wow. Calm the fuck down and lay off the guy. You're way out of line here. He never said this wasn't a good idea, if you, ya know, actually read what he wrote.

Well said.

I can't stand Android, but this is absolutely the right move.

I don't mind expansion packs, but this DLC and now "free to play" junk breaks game design...not to mention why you're even bothering to make the game in the first place.

I feel like there is some confusion about where I stand on this issue, which is barely an issue at all in the grand scheme of things. I'm very pro this. I'm not completely against IAP if the pricing structure can work out for the consumer but they very rarely do. IAPs wouldn't be a thing if we all stuck to our guns and didn't accept that they're mostly all BS. Just look at how Brad spent $30 on pretty much nothing on a whim just so his fake DOTA book was a higher level.

Nice.

I don't understand how anyone could have a problem with this. Seriously, it seems like some people are just looking for an excuse to be smug about their armchair parenting. This is a good thing that allows all consumers to have a quick and honest look at the nature of the games. In particular, it will make it easier to identify games which are built to push you to spend money at every turn.

@mr_creeper: Christ were you ever actually a kid yourself? Do you have ANY IDEA how little of a fuck a child will give about your economy given the opportunity? You'd be keeping a wolf's eye on your wallet to ensure your kid hasn't written down your cc info, oh wait, you can't, because your kid WILL get at your cc info. You think children joyride and crash their parents' cars because their parents didn't tell them not to?

I'm a mobile game developer. The idea that "free" is a suitable label for something that badgers you every four minutes to spay money is flat out bullshit of the first degree, and having a separate category for applications that ask for money versus applications that never do, versus applications that ask up front, is nothing if not positive. The market right now is a fucking shithole of underhanded nonsense and there is no good argument for it. Screw your dumb devil's advocate shit.

I don't really understand people in a huff over this change. They aren't stopping anyone from selling their games. They are simply adding required clarity to stop them from misleading consumers. Sure, consumers need to pay attention, but that doesn't give companies the right to attempt to take advantage of them in the first place.

This is going to hurt nobody, except maybe games abusing shady business practices to get downloads. I love a TON of "free to play" games, and have paid for microtransactions (looking at you PuzzDra) but all the same I think this is a change for the better.

Many of you are completely missing the point. This isn't about the government stepping in and regulating apps. This isn't some war against Free to Play games.

It's all about clarity. Ensuring that people know up front what they are getting into. There's nothing wrong with that.

Amen! The term 'free' has been increasingly abused by a growing number of unscrupulous developers who clearly spend more time contriving schemes to part their audience from their cash than on delivering quality gameplay.

I appreciate this move doesn't absolve parents of their responsibility but at least it it allows for proper separation of 'genuinely free' and 'in-app purchase funded' games at the highest level of abstraction; and who knows perhaps it might encourage some developers to clean up their act.

I find the anti F2P attitude of this article a little interesting considering Giant Bomb's premium membership is very similar to the kind of purchase you can make in a free app.

You might be surprised at that metric. If you asking how much money the average person spends, the answer is $0.