Good start, but too mild for my taste. Aren't there laws against overpricing/price gouging? The price of in-game purchases quite often bears no relation to the cost of production.
I wasn't aware of any laws that required products or services to be priced based on the cost of production, especially for luxury goods such as entertainment.
What does overpricing mean? That sounds a bit like wanting to forbid having profits (what level of relation is allowed, when is it not).
With most games with in-game currencies it’s free to play with paid cosmetics. Both the game’s price bears no relation to the production (it’s free) nor the skins’ (as they are subsidizing the free game).
I think that model is actually quite excellent (allowing people without money to still enjoy the game, while giving something to those who are happy to throw money at it, everybody being able to easily play with each other).
I am totally in favor of getting rid of in-game currencies, though. If anything, it should be like in steam, where you have an in-app wallet with a balance in your local currency.
Where such laws exist they are to prevent abuse in one-sided transactions such as a power company jacking up prices over christmas when there is nobody in the office to process service cancelations, or a cellphone company charging triple during a hurricane evac when everyone is on the move. I cannot see how a video game would rise to that level. One can always just play a different game.
I think this is a good thing in principle because there is no way pricing transparency is ever a bad thing.
But I think this will inadvertantly lead to an overall increase in prices, probably not intended by the people pursuing this.
Why? Because most of these in-game currencies are sold in packs of varying sizes and the larger packs are usually cheaper per-currency than smaller packs. A volume discount.
Selling the currency like this means the euro value of a single unit of currency is variable, which obviously cannot be reconciled with a requirement to peg a specific euro price onto the actual goods thereof.
So assuming this action is successful, we'll probably see an end to the volume discount with large packs becoming sold at the same euro-per-currency pricing as small packs, and a currency-to-euro conversion printed on the actual goods next to the price in currency.
There are some practical benefits to doing things this way, for both the game and the players.
Namely in that the in-game currency, not ackshually being real money, can be provided as rewards during normal gameplay and distributed by the devs during events, campaigns and promotions, or for compensation ("apologems") without complicated bureaucratic tax work for both devs and players.
I also think it's just tacky seeing actual dollar/yen/pound/euro signs flying around when you're trying to just enjoy yourself, which an in-game currency nicely avoids.
None of this to say the pricing being opaque isn't a problem of course, because it is and I reiterate that I agree with the legal action here in the interests of consumers.
Most all "real-world" stores offer discounts for buying more things at once. Just think of all of the "buy 2 get the 3rd free" etc. deals. Changing the currency from virtual to "real" does nothing to change that.
Showing the "real" cost should DECREASE the cost because when people see it in terms that they use day to day it feels like it's more expensive, so they are more likely to spend less. This would decrease profits for these video games.
The more likely unintended, if you can call it that, outcome would be that less games are solely free to play, relying exclusively on in-game cosmetic transactions.
Good. There shouldn't BE such a thing as in game currency. At least not any currency that can be purchased with money. Especially when companies will always set the price of an item to be less than the cost to purchase the currency, meaning that in order to use the full amount, you need to buy MORE currency and an additional item.
Yeah that data seems super cooked, right? My kids have 1 or 2 classmates who are allowed to do in-game purchases and that's like a few euros here and there, like after they got some birthday money.
Good but not enough if it doesn't target social casinos. I was shocked to learn that people pay for fake money to spend in virtual slot machines. You win fake money that you can't cash out. That is 0 RTP while realm money casinos must have over 90% - and they're still cashing in insane money.
I am not against gambling. I enjoy it myself on occasion, and I would not ban it. But still idea of gambling for money without chance to win money back... That just feels next step exploitation.
I do understand the dopamine process of demo games on casino sites, but still. Allowing people to pay for that...
From my understanding, the part that triggers the addiction is the possibility of winning money, so removing that seems to remove entirely the incentive.
That's an important consideration when deciding how to write regulations.
This is probably similar to alcohol regulations. It's not illegal to sell booze to say, a 35 year old housewife in a lot of places. But when she's too drunk to remember her own name often now it's illegal to sell her more booze. Lots of people enjoy booze, what she's doing is no longer enjoying booze. She's got a problem and so we decide it's illegal to make that problem worse.
As with booze, for some people these things have no pull. I feel no desire to drink booze, and I also feel no desire to buy video game coins. But that's fine, the regulations aren't about me. Regulations protect the vulnerable.
For example if your customers are spending more than a certain amount you need to show that you understood what they could afford to be spending and weren't allowing this to become a problem.
You can choose then, the simple option is our customers can't spend enough to go over that line, the potentially more lucrative but difficult option is check on your "whales" and only allow those who match affordability criteria.
A non-issue for bureaucratic busybodies. Spending real money on fake digital things already puts you into the category of dumb and/or feeble minded so I have little sympathy. And before anyone says "the children", its really their absent parents providing the funds. If my kid ran off with my money, I wouldn't go to the government to prevent it. If the government is going to pursue consumer protection initiatives for in-game/digital spending, are they going to police in-game/digital trades or commerce too? Will they employ in-game customs officials for WoW or CS skins?
Honestly, if you don't grow part of your food don't know the farmer who sell you the rest it's on you. I don't have any empathy for people who don't care about what they put in their plate.
In game currency of F2P games is part of the nasty financial scheme. Game economists are half-assed amateur central bankers with the sole mind to farm more $$$ from the players. We should just plain ban in-game currencies.
So the price of the game includes the real world price of buying a mithril longsword, and you can't slay goblins to get gold pieces to buy one in the game.
Sorry I don't really get what you are talking about. They can just sell like ordinary PC games. Yeah, they can price really high if they so wish, but it's going to impact the sales.
Mithril longswords should be priced like PC games? I don't follow.
In a normal game you'd kill orcs, pick up some stuff from each dead orc, sell the stuff to a merchant, and buy stuff you want from a different merchant. You're suggesting that should be illegal, so you should have to just... already start with all the equipment you'd ever want?
Will they go after Valve? Steam Wallet and Steam Community Market have many traits of IGCs (non-refundable, minimum top-up amounts, can be "earned" and traded).
I like using Steam Wallet,
and got many "free" games thanks to selling items on Community Market, but all of this always seemed like some grey area. In fact, even Steam Subscriber Agreement seems to contradict itself on the matter (it claims that Steam funds have no value, but later says that an user is responsible for any income taxes on Steam funds acquired on Community Market).
Very likely not. Only issue with Valve system is that consumer cannot get back their credit. Otherwise while their transaction taxes might be high everything is clearly marked in local currency. You know exactly how much real currency you are paying and there is 1:1 mapping between various payment methods and to in game currency.
There is no fake currency you can buy in varying sized bundles with opaque deals or discounts for larger purchases.
49 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 104 ms ] thread[0]: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/__138.html
With most games with in-game currencies it’s free to play with paid cosmetics. Both the game’s price bears no relation to the production (it’s free) nor the skins’ (as they are subsidizing the free game).
I think that model is actually quite excellent (allowing people without money to still enjoy the game, while giving something to those who are happy to throw money at it, everybody being able to easily play with each other).
I am totally in favor of getting rid of in-game currencies, though. If anything, it should be like in steam, where you have an in-app wallet with a balance in your local currency.
But I think this will inadvertantly lead to an overall increase in prices, probably not intended by the people pursuing this.
Why? Because most of these in-game currencies are sold in packs of varying sizes and the larger packs are usually cheaper per-currency than smaller packs. A volume discount.
Selling the currency like this means the euro value of a single unit of currency is variable, which obviously cannot be reconciled with a requirement to peg a specific euro price onto the actual goods thereof.
So assuming this action is successful, we'll probably see an end to the volume discount with large packs becoming sold at the same euro-per-currency pricing as small packs, and a currency-to-euro conversion printed on the actual goods next to the price in currency.
I'm quite confident that whatever legislation they pass will only motivate other workarounds that make the problem worse for everyone involved.
Except the politicians, of course (do they count as people?).
Namely in that the in-game currency, not ackshually being real money, can be provided as rewards during normal gameplay and distributed by the devs during events, campaigns and promotions, or for compensation ("apologems") without complicated bureaucratic tax work for both devs and players.
I also think it's just tacky seeing actual dollar/yen/pound/euro signs flying around when you're trying to just enjoy yourself, which an in-game currency nicely avoids.
None of this to say the pricing being opaque isn't a problem of course, because it is and I reiterate that I agree with the legal action here in the interests of consumers.
Showing the "real" cost should DECREASE the cost because when people see it in terms that they use day to day it feels like it's more expensive, so they are more likely to spend less. This would decrease profits for these video games.
The more likely unintended, if you can call it that, outcome would be that less games are solely free to play, relying exclusively on in-game cosmetic transactions.
What? Given how many that spend 0, there has to be alot of abused children.
Are in game purchases used for money loundering? Like, if you own half the stock in a company you can get a pretty good money cleaning rate.
The source they give for this is: https://www.videogameseurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/V... , which says this number is actually:
> Average spent per month (amongst all parents of children who spend in-game items)
According to the same source, 18% spend, 76% don't, and 7% are unknown. So excluding the unknowns, that's an average of 7.5€ per month.
I'm strongly against lootboxes and very concerned about videogames that are effectively casinos, but what the op described is just a videogame
I do understand the dopamine process of demo games on casino sites, but still. Allowing people to pay for that...
This is probably similar to alcohol regulations. It's not illegal to sell booze to say, a 35 year old housewife in a lot of places. But when she's too drunk to remember her own name often now it's illegal to sell her more booze. Lots of people enjoy booze, what she's doing is no longer enjoying booze. She's got a problem and so we decide it's illegal to make that problem worse.
As with booze, for some people these things have no pull. I feel no desire to drink booze, and I also feel no desire to buy video game coins. But that's fine, the regulations aren't about me. Regulations protect the vulnerable.
It'd be cool if a nonprofit free to play alternative was set up to cut into some of the damage these do.
You can choose then, the simple option is our customers can't spend enough to go over that line, the potentially more lucrative but difficult option is check on your "whales" and only allow those who match affordability criteria.
In a normal game you'd kill orcs, pick up some stuff from each dead orc, sell the stuff to a merchant, and buy stuff you want from a different merchant. You're suggesting that should be illegal, so you should have to just... already start with all the equipment you'd ever want?
I like using Steam Wallet, and got many "free" games thanks to selling items on Community Market, but all of this always seemed like some grey area. In fact, even Steam Subscriber Agreement seems to contradict itself on the matter (it claims that Steam funds have no value, but later says that an user is responsible for any income taxes on Steam funds acquired on Community Market).
There is no fake currency you can buy in varying sized bundles with opaque deals or discounts for larger purchases.
But the 39€ must be bs. I think just a really few children have so much money left just for in-game.
It's also a well known fact in such ecosystems, the big part of the money comes from a small part of (addicted) people.
How would you know?
What if they’re rich? Then they have a lot of money and time.
Can someone be addicted to golf? Anyway, why are rich people obligated to spend their money and time in a balanced, well rounded way anyway?
Videogame firms hit with EU complaint over 'tricking consumers'
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41516556