Yesterday, I discussed a rising epidemic of free-to-play game addiction, and how the nickel and dime microtransactions feed off players to turn some into hopeless, broke addicts. I asked if game makers had any responsibility to alter marketing or provide warnings or support for addiction, and now it seems the European Commission is asking some of the same questions.
They're approaching the issue a bit differently however, like it's a matter of false advertising. In particular, they take issue with the term "free-to-play" which on the surface makes it seems like the game is free, but anyone familiar with the scene knows that many games called that are anything but.
"The use of the word 'free' (or similar unequivocal terms) as such, and without any appropriate qualifications, should only be allowed for games which are indeed free in their entirety, or in other words which contain no possibility of making in-app purchases, not even on an optional basis," the organization said.
Other terms besides "free" the Commission wants to cut out are spend-baiting phrases like "Upgrade now!" or "Buy now!" that would entice younger players to purchase in-game items without realizing the real life cost involved. There have been many horror stories of children racking up huge bills for their parents by buying virtual gold coins for real life money, despite the safeguards that exist to prevent such a thing from happening.
I'm not sure these sort of requests will really do all that much. Safeguards are in place so this sort of thing only rarely happens, and the vast majority of the time, if players are spending hundreds or thousands of dollars on a "free-to-play" game, they're doing it on purpose.
It's also head-scratching to try and figure out what these games would be classified as if they can no longer use the world "free." I think technicality is on their side, because yes, the games are free to play. Granted you will likely have a much worse play experience if you stick to playing for free than if you were spending money, but the identifier is accurate, if not a bit misleading to the uninitiated, and that's what the EU commission seems to be going after here.
I guess these companies would just have to be content calling their games "games" like everyone else instead of something like "a free-to-play multiplayer adventure experience!" or whatever else you see such titles advertised as in banner ads. But as seen above, this isn't just Chinese knock-off games using the term. "Free-to-play" is a huge part of ad campaigns from major games from World of Warcraft to League of Legends to Guild Wars and more. This would be a major advertising overhaul if these "false advertising" rules ever gained traction in the EU or worldwide.
I think anyone remotely involved in the industry has figured out that "free-to-play" automatically means there will be microtransactions within, so I'm not sure what this accomplishes other than parsing semantics. Though if a few clueless parents are spared exorbitant purchases by their mischievous kids, I guess it's worthwhile.
Addiction is the real problem here, when players who can't afford it get so hooked on a game they knowingly spend themselves broke continuing to play. Again, not a terribly common occurrence, but it's happening more and more often as the genre spikes in popularity. Hopefully the EU Commission and others will turn their attention toward that issue next.
Follow me on Twitter, subscribe to my Forbes feed, and pick up a copy of my sci-fi novel, The Last Exodus, and its sequel, The Exiled Earthborn.
