You're right, of course, some games have free to play so ingrained in their system that a one price unlock would be unfair/unprofitable. That's the problem of this thread, it has no context because it was yanked from another thread in the iPhone/iPad games forum. The game was Dark Sword, and it apparently has a stamina-like system which can be circumvented by watching ads. Since I haven't played it, I can't actually comment much about it, but it seems to me that a one price unlock wouldn't hurt the balance of the game.
I think this needed to be pulled over to a general discussion thread. If a new reader to the site googled "dark sword tips", came across this thread, I wouldn't consider it good for the site, or the dev, or helpful to the person reading about it. And like so many threads, the guys that derailed the thread (don't freak out on me, just being honest), have a tendency to do so with any F2P game. I wouldn't think it bad to say something like "hey dev, great game (or bad game), what are the chances of IAP to remove ads?" But so many times it becomes "not playin dis game bruh. f2p garbage junk bro. never gunna touch my device man." Which is useless information for a game thread. I'd be happy to see a daily "why F2P is bad" from folks, over basically copying/pasting their opinions on the SUBJECT of F2P vs their OPINION of said game.
I'd like to ask something different but first, let me state I hate freemium. Now, I don't hate free to try with IAPs that unlock levels or parts of the game, or IAPs that essentially turn the game into more of a premium like experience (ad removers, coin multipliers etc). I hate the evil kind of freemium with consumables, timers, energy systems, you get it. To me, the practice is no different than a drug dealer's practice. After all, drug dealers usually let their pray try their products by giving them a free sample so they can come and ask for more later on, after which they will make their pray pay huge amounts by getting them addicted to their drug. Now in regard to this, the current mobile gaming scene is mostly unregulated, the current generation of "old" politicians and older people such as parents etc. are alien to it, they view it as simple mindless games and aren't aware of the practices of some developers/publishers and the danger they may bring in. There are no laws to regulate and prevent any of the evil freemium practices I was talking about earlier. What if, for example, a law like this was passed: Allow freemium games to exist but allow the maximum amount to be spent by user to be no more than, say $50, and at which point the game should get rid of all the restrictions and exploits (timers & energy etc.) and allow a human to play as much as possible whenever they want without having to pay anymore. I know this sounds weird or whatever, it's just something I was thinking about today and wanted to share it and perhaps get your opinion about it. I think (and hope) the mobile gaming scene should be thoroughly analyzed and regulated for the good of the consumer. Game development should be done in good faith.
I'm not a legal expert by any means, but this wouldn't work. Premise, digital purchases for online gaming: EA/Bioware allows you to play SWTOR for free. Imagine if the government attempted to regulate EA/Bioware on only allowing a consumer, who was WILLING to pay $100 per month, to only $50 per month. Once a player hits his $50 per month, he gets anything he wants for free. Unlimited characters, mounts, XP boosts, outfits, etc. Now, let's use Clash of Clans. Supercell allows you to play CoC for free. Now the government is regulating a $50 spending limit for that game. So, I spend $50 per month in CoC, I now get unlimited restrictions. Unlimited gems, unlimited troop regen from the gems, etc. Not to sound harsh, but this would never, ever work. Not to mention, you talk about regulation as if whatever country you're in is the only country. I'm from the U.S. so I was speaking as such, but you'd be talking about some international law that all devs abide by if they use the Apple App Store (not ToS, actual international law). Long story short, you're basically saying a government should force companies to only allow certain amount of spending to allow playtime. That opens an incredibly dangerous avenue for governments to regulate what we do in our spare time.
People spend real money to buy fake money in slot machine apps. It is worse than actual gambling and yet completely legal and kids can play those "games." So regulation of F2P games seems highly unlikely anytime soon.
My children (7 and 4) play iOS gaming. Not one time have they ever played anything I didn't approve of. Not one time have they spent IAP (like the horror stories you see online). If kids are playing things they "shouldn't" be or spending more than they should be allowed, I have no sympathy. It's 100% on the parents. I use my touchID for ANY downloads, free/puchase/IAP. I read about a game before I let my kiddos dive into it. I understand what the IAP is before letting them play. So much of this is simply on the consumer, NOT the devs. It does NOT make devs like "drug dealers" lol I'm not saying you were eluding to that, but it seems relevant to what will probably be posted in this thread sooner or later.
Why wouldn't it work though? Would it bring less profit for the devs/publishers? Yes, probably. But would it be beneficial for the consumer? Definitely. As a consumer, this is what I care about. I'm a tech power user and I currently have a child (still a baby) but holy shit do I fear the day he will become accustomed with a tablet and, inevitably, games. I don't want him to become ingrained with the freemium culture, I will make sure to do my part on informing and enlightening him so he can avoid it.
Yeah, I guess that makes sense, I usually don't check f2p game threads for all the reasons I've stated before, so I wouldn't know about who does what. But since that's what was being previously discussed, I had to give it some context because I felt we were discussing different things. It's interesting however, because this is clearly a topic that ignites people, and I really do enjoy discussing it, as long as we all can be civil about it. There have been some great points, and I feel like I understand this weird world a bit better for it.
You wouldn't believe how easily the brain is tricked. Probably big companies are spending hard cash on studies on how to make people more likely to spend. The right stimulation on a certain situation can make even the most self controlled person doesn't thinking straight. By all means, I am not saying that all f2p does that. But I would be surprised if there isn't many shady things on game development, especially for the big guns.
So you start up a company. That company is a go-kart company. I take my kids to your place to have some fun. However, due to new regulations the government says I can only spend $150. BUT, thankfully, I've spent that so now I can use as much of your resources (fuel, tread, track wear) as I want and we can stay there all day doing so. Let's talk about digital goods then. Supercell now is regulated. Spending on their game is capped at $50 per user. Good for the average consumer? Maybe, not sure. But doesn't matter, it's now a law. 2 months later we here about Supercell doing layoffs. A year later, they're shut down. Wasn't able to pour as much time into development, couldn't hire a new wave up app devs, etc. You act as though government limiting the profits on consumable digital goods would just be a good/normal thing. It wouldn't, I assure you.
I get that (I struggled quitting WoW). So I really do get that. But it's not Blizzards fault lol Can't really blame alcohol companies for alcoholics, right? Being honest...
The suggestion I provided was not an ultimate solution though. I mean, for online games like Supercell's etc. they could force a subscription model instead of a spending cap, like pay $5-10 / month and that's it, it gets rid of all the freemium aspects, while those who don't want to pay can still "wait to play" etc. Be it a one time or multiple fees, or a subscription, everything should have a cap. I know it sounds unrealistic and it probably won't happen, but it would definitely halt today's cancerous freemium trends. The mobile gaming business needs regulation.
For conversation sake, could you provide an example? I used Clash of Clans and Candy Crush as my examples as to why it wouldn't work. Can you think of a freemium to which a spending limit would work? I think we both truly know this will never happen. Government regulating spending on digital goods is simply too dangerous, but I'd still like to see your example or hear more thoughts.
Oh god I can't believe I'm letting myself get sucked into this conversation. I don't know if the government should step in, but "omg not more regulations!" isn't really a good argument unless you believe that everyone should be able to take advantage of others as long as they're willing (i.e. No minimum wage, go back to child labor, and a number of other things that allow the weakest and most desperate members of our society to be taken advantage of by those with the means to do so). Does the government always get it right? Of course not. But we regulate actual gambling that offers a real monetary reward if you win. How do we not regulate the same thing where your real money only gets you fake money to gamble away? We also regulate things like alcohol, drugs and cigarettes. When things are considered harmful and dangerous when unregulated, we regulate them. Are IAPs as bad as those? Probably not. But does that mean it should go unchecked if people with low self control are being taken advantage of and these companies are getting filthy rich off their weaknesses? (I know I just opened this up to the inevitable discussion about how the government regulates gambling so they can tax it. But so be it.)
An example for what? You played World of Warcraft, right? Didn't you pay for a subscription for that game? I gave a similar example for the Supercell game, except that Supercell's game is much easier to develop and maintain than World of Warcraft. Just think about it, do the math. It's as if we are going backwards instead of progressing forward when it comes to mobile gaming. Back in the day we had arcades, I had a love/hate relationship with them. I loved how good the games looked on them but I hated how you had to pay to play for a couple of minutes. I loved watching people play Street Fighter 2 more than I could play it myself because it was expensive. But then Nintendo released the SNES and SF2 came along. I can't tell you how happy I felt when my parents bought me a SNES with SF2, I was finally able to play that game as much as I wanted, to my heart's content, without any restrictions, without having to pay and worry every time I lost. It's like we had that period of freedom and now we're going back to the arcades.
I completely agree with what you're saying. Government regulation should only come in to a situation were the consumer is being taken advantage of. They did this to cable companies years ago to stop them from continually raising prices on customers. I remember being charged monthly for the second and third cable outlets we had in our house. It didn't matter that it was all coming into the house on the same line and was then split and redirected to the various outlets, we had to pay for each tv that was connected to there stream. That got away with this behavior for years because cable was a relatively new thing and there weren't very many options for tv at the time. We used to have an antenna on the roof of our house before we got cable, that's how limited the options were. The government doesn't and definitely shouldn't be regulating what things cost if there are comparable alternatives available.
Hehe, aren't we supposed to discuss things around here? I for one am enjoying this discussion immensely. I had never thought about the possibility of government regulation, but I wouldn't really chalk it off if it meant a safer and fairer gaming environment. I don't really know how they'd go for it, though, since ultimately people have to be responsible for their own actions, and we can't expect the government to handhold us all the way through life. However, there does seem to be many shady stuff involving some games' development, from highly addictive mechanics that prey on the unsuspecting mind, to hidden data-gathering, and those do need some kind of regulation.
Exactly. Abuse is one thing. Regulation on addictive games that target impulsive spenders is another.
