• warm
    link
    fedilink
    117 days ago

    In-game purchases should display the exact cost in the local currency. In-game currency should be completely banned.

    • KSP Atlas
      link
      fedilink
      016 days ago

      Depends what counts as an in game currency, does a game where you earn currency in-game and spend it in-game count as an in-game currency? What about if players can trade it?

      • warm
        link
        fedilink
        116 days ago

        We are talking about anything that has real monetary value, if you cannot obtain it through real money, then it’s not in the discussion. Of course it opens a whole new problem, where they could sell “boosts” to earning virtual currency etc. So that would have to be taken into account with the legislation.

        • @Obi@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          016 days ago

          They’re gonna have such a hard time parsing this for WoW… WoW gold is a major part of the game and they’ve been screwing with it for a while now, I don’t play it anymore but I heard about possibilities to buy tokens that you sell for gold in game but conversely you can also use the gold to buy game time or something? And then off course all the DLC stuff, it’s gonna be complicated for sure.

          • warm
            link
            fedilink
            116 days ago

            Yeah, same with OSRS, you buy a bond which you can turn into 1 week membership, or trade it other players. Which is honestly fine, it lets people get membership without spending real money, but I’d rather none of the better/fairer systems exist if it means removing the egregious ones. Really we just want to target systems that make you buy a virtual currency to just sell you microtransactions, but how do you write legislation for that? It’s very tricky, which is why it’s probably never going to happen.

    • @Paradachshund@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      017 days ago

      There are many many examples of predatory uses of in game currencies, but here are some big reasons devs use them besides being scummy.

      • Giving currency for free: giving people real money isn’t something any dev wants to deal with, so giving in game currency allows this to happen. This also applies to games where you can convert free currency to premium currency.
      • Local currencies: currency packages can be set to local prices without having to localize the in-game economy itself. This simplifies development a lot.
      • Weak promotion support on distributor platforms: believe it or not, iOS and android have incredibly weak promotion and sale support. By giving in-game currency, it gets around that failing of the platforms because the game can do whatever it wants with the in-game currency.

      Transparency is good, but let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

      • @belastend@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        017 days ago
        1. Give store credit for free. Easy. Let them turn ingame currencies into store credit.
        2. That might be difficult, i give you that, but given the amount of work companies put into their monetization schemes, i am sure a converter can be worked out. Or use dollar/euro/ruble/yuan equivalents, depending on the largest market near a smaller currency.
        3. See 1. Give away store credit.
        • warm
          link
          fedilink
          116 days ago

          Store credit lets them manipulate you. They can say the minimum top up is $5. Then put the cheapest items at $3. Want two $3 items? You have to deposit at least $10! It goes on and on.

          No. Just make it so you add items to a cart and purchase their exact value with real money, no in between, no scummy tactics.

          (But if it was up to me, I would ban MTX altogether)

      • @Don_alForno@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        1
        edit-2
        17 days ago

        What baby? In game purchases? That’s not a baby, that’s a big shit somebody took in your tub. If transparency is too hard to implement, publishers should feel free to get rid of them altogether.

      • warm
        link
        fedilink
        117 days ago

        They can give items for free instead. Without currency they cant give you 90% of what you need and force you to overpay for extra.

        A variable for a value is trivial. It already works perfectly fine in the store!

        Sure sales on mobile… (sounds like Apple and Google would get some needed pressure to improve this area) but thats another problem, none of these purchases should be expensive enough to even warrant needing a sale in the first place.

        The real reason they want in game currency is not any of these, it’s for the deception factor, avoiding refunds, upselling etc

      • @Suppoze@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        117 days ago

        Giving currency for free: giving people real money isn’t something any dev wants to deal with, so giving in game currency allows this to happen. This also applies to games where you can convert free currency to premium currency.

        But this is how gift codes work, no? You’re not giving money away directly. Just give a voucher for a real currency if you want to gift users.

        • @Paradachshund@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          016 days ago

          Can you give me an example of one you’ve seen?

          The original poster was saying paid currency shouldn’t exist, so I think in that scenario, you could only have vouchers for a whole in-game item. So for example if an item costed $5, then yes you could give away codes to redeem that item.

          There’s also an operational overhead to doing it that way compared to in-game currency though, because setting up products in google play/iOS can be kind of a pain compared to adding them to your own systems. Generally the dev wants as much to be under their control as possible because they have more flexibility that way compared to making products in the app stores.

          Also worth noting that iOS will block your app if you provide ways to get products (meaning things that cost real money) through ways other than the app store. So that means the dev wouldn’t be able to ever give you something in the game itself if that thing can also be bought. They could only give coupon codes (these are manually generated) for products to use in the app store interface.

          I’d be interested to hear an example of one you’ve seen because it might be a way to approach it that I’m not thinking about.

          • @onnekas@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            016 days ago

            I guess there are no examples (yet?) because until now everybody was using in game currencies to deal with that.

            But could you not give a player a voucher that says “-5€ on your next checkout” ? And then they get exactly that.

              • @DarthYoshiBoy@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                1
                edit-2
                15 days ago

                Genshin Impact until these last few months had exactly what @onnekas@sopuli.xyz is suggesting on Google Play. You could redeem Google Play points for a voucher that gave you $3 off a real money purchase. Additionally, devs on Reddit would often post codes to give a set dollar amount off of a new app. I’m pretty positive that at least with Google Play, vouchers that can give $X off a purchase are baked into the platform in numerous ways.

  • @misk@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    017 days ago

    The CPC Network, coordinated by the European Commission, is publishing a set of guidelines today to promote transparency and fairness in the online gaming industry’s use of virtual currencies.

    That doesn’t seem binding.

    • @unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      1
      edit-2
      17 days ago

      Nah thats usually how those start out afaik. They start with a guideline and a grace period. Then when the grace period is over there is a warning period and after that it goes straight to fines.

      The CPC Network will monitor progress and may take further actions if harmful practices continue.

      Lets see what happens.

    • @Micromot@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      117 days ago

      It is in part. They are hosting workshops and publishing these guidelines so companies can work on it on their own merit but they will also take further action if the harmful practices continue

    • katy ✨
      link
      fedilink
      116 days ago

      because the people who hate the eu are the people who are wrong.

        • @zaphod@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          116 days ago

          The cookie law isn’t dumb, but at this point it should maybe be reformed. Basically as long as a website doesn’t do shady shit with cookies no cookie banner is required. Instead of complaining about the cookie banner law, people should complain about websites who sell their users’ data.

          • @denshi@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            116 days ago

            Basically as long as a website doesn’t do shady shit with cookies no cookie banner is required.

            That is actually the status quo. If a website only uses cookies that are needed to make the website function, there is no need for a banner or dialogue. These cookie banners are there deliberately to be annoying so you’ll agree to more than is necessary.

          • Echo Dot
            link
            fedilink
            116 days ago

            The dumb bit of the law is the fact that websites are allowed to put up an annoying banner that says either accept cookies or individually deselect 240 checkboxes.

          • @jarfil@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            116 days ago

            The newest take on cookies, is “accept all, or pay to read”. Quite shady, if you ask me.

  • @60d@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    116 days ago

    Stop selling gambling as okay to kids. Gacha games equal gambling for minors.

    • @Sina@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      116 days ago

      This is especially funny in South Korea. Go to a Casino and burn $2000 and you may even get jail time, but gatcha is A ok.

  • Mad_Punda
    link
    fedilink
    1
    edit-2
    17 days ago

    I wonder if this will in practice put an end to the scummy practice of badly sized in game currency pack sizes, one of the many scummy techniques they use to make people spend more.

    Let’s say the thing most players buy costs 3 ingame currency (I love that my autocorrect made „insane currency“ out of that). The smallest pack you can buy is 5. So, the player buys 5, spends 3 and has 2 left with which nothing to do. If they want another 3, they have to buy 5 more. Spend 3, have 4 left. Spend 3, have 1 left. The cycle continues.

    • @Oka@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      017 days ago

      Or, just stop games from selling in-game content?

      Every skin is a texture or model swap, every “exclusive” always exists in the files, every in-game currency is fabricated.

      Games try really really hard to make you pay for something that is copy and pasted

      • @gamer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        116 days ago

        This is one of those radical ideas that people are terrified of, because it would kill the business models of a lot of massive corporations. It’s easy to spin that as the death of the game industry, rather than what it is: the death of a business practice.

        Like the laws against underage smoking probably wiped out billions in shareholder value, but that was objectively a good thing. Banning (or heavily regulating) in-game purchases would also be a good thing, no matter how much it affects existing players. If it leads to the death of name brands like EA, Ubisoft, etc. then who cares? The market will readjust and new players who were able to adapt to the changed environment will take their place.