I've been playing Puzzle and Dragons for about 7 months, and have probably spent the equivalent of a $15/mo subscription over that period of time. The mechanics to make you pay absolutely feel contrived and scummy; the game strongly limits how much you can play in a given time period (stamina), and playing more than that requires the equivalent of $1. Dungeons also have strange difficulty levels, where the boss is significantly more challenging than the levels leading to it, so after you've invested the time to get there, you have the choice of "paying" $1 each time you are about to lose, or leaving the dungeon and potentially having to "pay" $1 to play more -- especially since the harder dungeons eat up a larger portion of your stamina. The worst, though, is that obtaining better monsters requires a slot-machine style gamble, and each try costs around $5. There's such a high chance of getting a mediocre monster instead, that there's actually a term called "Gung-trolled."
That said, the game is very well designed and a lot of fun, and lends itself well to being played during a short commute. There are a subset of players who make a lot of progress without any in-app purchases, but the game constantly makes you question what's worth more: your time, or $1.
Personally, I would be happier with a $5-10/mo subscription fee, but instead I'm left with a twinge of guilt every time I make an in-app purchase.
I've often thought that F2P games should be strictly regulated like gambling is. No one questions the 18+ law on fruit machines in the UK, but we allow a roulette style IAP for a F2P game with no regulation?
The worst part is, if you sent kids into a casino, there's at least a chance they'd make their money back!
We regulate gambling because its effects are insidious and the addiction devastating. It can destroy lives. How is "coercive monetisation" in F2P games any different, other than the fact that it's a relatively new phenomenon?
I can't imagine a set of regulations that would be reasonable. I have friends who have completed all the levels of Candy Crush Saga without spending any money, yet it's probably the most successful example of this ever. According to the article 80% never paid.
For the example you cite I completely agree, taking a casino game and making it IAP is horrible and should be regulated like that. However you word that though, you're going to have horrible developers find a way around it. Anything short of banning IAPs is going to be worked around, and banning IAPs doesn't sound like a reasonable idea.
The other thing is 18+ as regulation, I'd be staggered if that was pulled off successfully. Lots of things on the internet are 18+ and not used exclusively by adults. That's an unworkable regulation by any precedent.
This is really horrible, but I don't see any way to regulate it successfully.
I'd probably suggest some sort of restriction on IAP amounts. Under-16s in the UK can play fruit machines, but only upto a £5 jackpot before it gets classified as adult gambling where serious amounts of money can be lost. This is on the assumption that people won't bother putting more than £5 in, as they know that they won't make a profit. This assumption doesn't hold in the IAP-world as the "profit" for the player is ostensibly, having a fun time. Although as the article shows, in reality a lot of these game monetisation tactics are really about players paying to remove an artificially enforced pain on the player, rather than to increase the fun.
So maybe just a hard limit on total IAP purchases for each game targeted at under-16s.
Also, the same restrictions that apply to gambling advertising should apply to F2P/IAP games, for the exact same reasons.
The trickiest part about it would be defining what is an acceptable game vs. an unacceptable game for the purposes of regulation. When does an acceptable F2P game like Team Fortress 2 become an unacceptable game like Candy Crush Saga? Maybe there are some people out there who think TF2 is completely unacceptable too.
I'm not saying it isn't difficult, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. In my mind I see both gambling and these F2P "money" games occupying the exact same ethical arena.
EDIT:
The hard cap on IAP purchases for under-16s doesn't even need to be all that low, it just needs to exist at all. Placing it at £30 would limit the potential damage done to the child, whilst also being relatively fair to the game company as it's roughly the same price as a game bought off the shelf.
You're basically asserting a hardline-principle ethic for them. However, as someone once said, "principles are what people die for," so you might agree that the relationship between IAP and desirability of play is a little more nuanced than, "well why don't you murder it out of your life, then?"
But that's the whole point of IAPs; it's exactly what JonFish85's top-level comment says: this is an abusive relationship. It hurts you, but you keep coming back for more.
No. I'm fully capable of ignoring games based on my principles. He chooses to be in that "relationship" despite not liking it. It's his own problem, his own responsibility. He supports it despite his own reasoning, which is stupid, but it's his choice.
Which is exactly why I've said it should be regulated like gambling; You hear the exact same dysfunctional, illogical reasoning from compulsive gamblers.
We have regulation to protect children from this with old-fashioned gambling, but none for F2P/IAP.
I've absolutely no problem with adults letting themselves in for it, but there needs to be more effort to reduce the harm to children - and ultimately their parents wallets!
So you disagree with laws banning children from casinos and other gambling venues? That's all I'm proposing the equivalent of. Not new regulation, but placing certain categories of F2P/IAP games within the existing gambling laws.
PS: Please don't use a thread quote mark for something I didn't say.
You are using "think of the children" argument were you not.
Parents are the ones who should keep kids out of casinos not the state. There are parents who buy their kids scratch tickets. Even with the laws, you can't stop bad parenting, and when you start to legislate things to save the children you ruin things for everyone. Right now the new South Park game is less available in Australia and Germany because they think of the children so much, they want to censor and protect so much, that adults can't have what they want. What effect does this have? Kids want what they can't have more. In states where alcohol is more restricted kids try to get it more, because it's cool. In states where alcohol is less of a big deal instead of idealizing getting drunk people apologize for their friends who do drink too much. Better parenting, better families is the solution not more laws!!!!!
>F2P/IAP games within the existing gambling laws
No. If there is no monetary gain possible then it's not gambling (pretend things are not real, things owned by other people are not your property). If you care then spend your own time and money to help to get parents to understand that it's their job to protect and educate their own children and not any problem of the rest of us. Don't try to give states more power to steal more liberties just so you can build up another fantasy of doing something.
You don't see this from the right perspective. You might be the special snowflake that is invulnerable to manipulation and has the ability to always choose rationally. But many people don't. It's abusive by definition, because the game makers are deliberately using proven methods of tricking people into doing things they wouldn't otherwise do.
You wouldn't call something a manipulation method if it was effective only if the target wanted it to be. Brains are imperfect machines, and people making those games are malicious hackers exploiting cognitive bugs for profit.
>tricking people into doing things they wouldn't otherwise do
Look at all of these people getting tricked into playing stupid match three games! Stupid sheep liking trash - that's a bug! They should like what I like! I have actual taste and plays real games and not this shit no one would play. They would pay for power? Bah! No one pays to have advantages. Sports competitors don't spend thousands of dollars to give themselves slight advantages in physical events. Why would anyone do that. Speaking of which, why would anyone support Duck Dynasty??? It must be a glitch in those human brains again.. so easily manipulated! They are obviously being tricked into liking that stupid show.
I'm not so arrogant that I think I'm smarter than everyone else. I think it's the simple case of me liking what I like and them liking what they like. If they like to spend their money on things I see as wasteful that's their choice. They probably feel the same way with how I spend my money.
You should try Puzzle Quest for DS, a used DS and cart should not be that bad, plus you can sell it all if you get bored later for not much loss and you won't have that feeling of guilt as you spend money. The game is great for short trips, basically just close the DS and it sleeps until the next time you open it, then almost instantly you are right back where you were. Charge the DS when you get home, and you might not even ever have to power it off.
Thanks for the suggestion - that looks fun! I already have a DS but loathe the idea of having to carry it around with me. It's definitely a very nice system, and can actually sleep for a few days unlike the 3DS.
That said, the game is very well designed and a lot of fun, and lends itself well to being played during a short commute. There are a subset of players who make a lot of progress without any in-app purchases, but the game constantly makes you question what's worth more: your time, or $1.
Personally, I would be happier with a $5-10/mo subscription fee, but instead I'm left with a twinge of guilt every time I make an in-app purchase.