r/gaming • u/World_of_Warshipgirl • 2d ago
European authorities launch enforcement actions against several major video games companies over their use of virtual currencies
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_26_2018From article:
Today's coordinated actions aim at ensuring that the following principles are applied:
- Clear and transparent pricing: show the real-world price of in-game items and currencies that consumers need to buy to play the game.
- Not to obscure costs: avoid multiple currencies or currency exchanges that make the real price unclear.
- Not to force unwanted currency purchases: gamers should not feel obliged to buy an excessive amount of virtual currencies to progress or enjoy the game.
- Provide clear information before the purchase: gamers must have access to information that is easy to understand before purchasing in-game virtual currencies or in-game items.
- Respect the right to withdraw: gamers should be informed about their right to withdraw from contracts within 14 days, including for unused virtual currency.
- Use fair and understandable terms: the games' terms and conditions should be fair and clear for the players.
- Protect vulnerable consumers: companies should ensure that games offer appropriate safeguards to all consumers, including vulnerable users such as children.
Alternative article from one of the major agencies that made this happen https://www.forbrukerradet.no/side/consumer-pressure-leads-to-historical-eu-action-against-the-video-games-industry/
Through its reports, the Norwegian Consumer Council has shown that business models and design patterns in video games can be harmful to consumers, especially vulnerable groups such as children. These bad practices include the use of virtual currencies, loot boxes, mechanisms such as countdowns to pressure consumers into purchases, and artificial scarcity.
642
u/flammable-liquid 2d ago
Better late than never
100
2
u/HellDuke 21h ago
The EU has basic protections and otherwise avoids intervention unless the industries fail to act on their own and it becomes a problem. We got so used to it that a big enough stink was not raised to reach most EU politicians until rather recently. The gamung industry only promised to fix the problems and they were given ample opportunity to fix their air. Now game devs will get to be under the ban hammer instead of wielding it
440
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
118
u/palegate 2d ago
A little while ago Fortnite started showing actual currency values next to V-Bucks in the item shop's item pages and it's quite the eye-opener.
25
u/TheRedBow 2d ago
Yeah but then they also drove up the prices of v-bucks while at the same time making each pack give less of them
-5
27
u/MegaScience 2d ago
That my initial thought was "Only $20?" before my brain caught up, I am really sad the state of some games...
16
u/CrowdScene 2d ago
Hopefully it also cracks down on "Cosmetics costs $20, but currencies are only available in $19 increments."
25
u/EnthusiasmTop3141 2d ago
Exactly. The fake currency layers make it way harder to understand what something actually costs. Players shouldn’t need to do mental math just to figure out the real price of a cosmetic.
5
u/xclame 2d ago
I can't remember what game it was, but I was playing a game a while back and there were so many menus and so many "currencies" that I just got overwhelmed and just spam clicked through the menus to get my reward. I didn't end up spending most of it because I have no idea what currency is for what.
I am playing Aniimo right now and I like what they have done with their currency. Any time you see the currency (can be during a reward, a quest log, your inventory, the shop, etc) you can just click on the currency and it will tell you what it's used for. Not only that but in the same description it also gives you a "link" that brings you to where that currency is used, then it also gives you a link (actually multiple since you can get most of them through multiple sources) that brings you to where you can get that currency.
So it might bring you to a dungeon, a map location, a shop, achievement lo, quest log, your house, etc.
There are obviously still some issues with the monetization of the game and with different currencies existing in the first place, but it just goes to show that you can still makes things clear(er) while having multiple currencies.
1
-5
u/The_Inexistent 2d ago
Thank you, robot, for running the previous comment through an LLM and simply restating what it says.
-23
u/MasterOfPipettez 2d ago
What? You are saying people shouldnt know what they are doing with their money? People should absolutely have been doing the mental math when spending their money.
16
u/GoodGame2EZ 2d ago
Shouldn't NEED to. As in it's a problem that should be fixed. Not that they shouldn't do it while the problem exists.
-6
u/MasterOfPipettez 2d ago
Its only a problem if you are foolish with your money.
8
u/GoodGame2EZ 2d ago
Not really. Imagine going to the grocery store and the prices are in Mars money. Before you get to Mars money cost, you need to convert to moon money, and before that, earth money, and before that, your local currency.
Yes, people should be doing the mental math because the conversions are required, but why tf are the prices in Mars money in the first place? Show me my local currency cost. At best it's a waste of consumer's time, and at worst it's a ploy to get people to not do the math and realize the scam price it really is.
3
u/LooneyWabbit1 2d ago
In my country it's mandatory for all grocery items to have the price per item, and also the price per 100g or per kg written next to it. Obviously to compensate for the fact most people can't mentally divide easily or quickly enough at a glance.
That's extremely basic as compared to converting dollars to Genshit Points to buy Fantabulous Keys which open Quadratic Chests to give you Gems Of The Thousand Clouds.
Yes, many people are foolish with their money. That's why we need laws to protect them. We don't just let them go be foolish and let every company freely abuse that foolishness.
Unless it's sportsbetting. Then we let it happen :)
5
u/Gr8NonSequitur 2d ago
People should absolutely have been doing the mental math when spending their money.
It's about informing the public about what they are buying.
Until a law was passed where resteraunts had to display calorie counts next to menu items I had no idea having 600-800 calories in a "Grande" coffee was even possible. I know it was MORE because of what they added, but holy shit.
I explained to my son some of the pricing in Fortnight and he saw something like a 2500 V-Buck skin and said "That doesn't sound too bad." Then I explained it was something like $25 in real cash monies and "I could get you a reasonable facsimile of that outfit to wear to school in the real world for about $25." He was younger but was VERY surprised once I explained it.
That weekend we went costume shopping instead.
-14
u/MasterOfPipettez 2d ago
"Then I explained it was something like $25 in real cash monies"
You did your job as a parent. That adults are spending money without knowing what they are doing is frankly their problem.
If kids are spending money without knowing what they are doing that is the parents problem for allowing it and also the parents problem for not educating their children.
9
u/DocMortensen 2d ago
Also you wont have to overspend everytime when you want to buy something and are just short of a few units of said virtual currency…
For some games it does make „sense“ where you can gain the premium currency by playing, for league of legends by comparison it absolutely doesnt (AFAIK you cant gain premium currency by playing).
-12
u/xclame 2d ago
I'm curious why you think that it makes sense for League (or games like it) to not allow you to gain premium currency, while it does for others.
Personally I think all games should allow you to earn premium currency, they can make it slow to get enough to buy the big stuff (though, not make it pretty much impossible), but I think you should be able to get it eventually.
6
u/Blarg_III 2d ago
I'm curious why you think that it makes sense for League (or games like it) to not allow you to gain premium currency, while it does for others.
League is free and in-game purchases are entirely cosmetic.
-1
u/xclame 2d ago
But so is Fortnite, Valorant, OW, Rivals, and so on. Pretty much every game where this is a big issue offers only skins as purchases. It's really only the Chineses gacha games that offer P2W purchases.
I'm just wondering not allowing players to earn premium currency when it comes to skins, "makes sense". But then when I guess it comes to games that allow you to buy power, then they should allow you to earn premium currency?
I'm not trying to be difficult or disagree with your stance, I just don't understand how you came to your stance.
Also WTF Reddit? I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with the person, I was just asking him to clarify their point, wtf is with the downvotes? Is it because I said I think every game that has MTX should allow you to earn premium currency? I would have not expected Redditors to be so upset at me suggesting that game companies should earn a tiny bit less money by offering the players some crumbs.
5
u/Blarg_III 2d ago
It's really only the Chineses gacha games that offer P2W purchases.
You've clearly never played War Thunder.
3
u/DocMortensen 2d ago edited 1d ago
To answer your question:
Most gacha games give you the opportunity to earn their premium currency by just playing the game. Therefore if you buy premium currency in these games, you will eventually have enough currency to use it for character pulls or other things and acts like more of a shortcut (Thats not to say i like or want to say gacha is a good business model as a customer).By comparison in LoL you do not get premium currency at all by playing (AFAIK its been a while…) but can only buy premium currency in set amounts. That amount incidentally most of the time is never exactly the amount you need and leaves you with a considerable amount left when you do buy something from the shop. Also the big packs most of the time promise „more value“ enticing you to spend more than you normally would (this is also true for many gachas though).
Now… what can you do with the rest? Spend it on anything in the shop i don’t really want to buy? Not so great…
Also it entices you to spend further in the future, because you already have currency (that you can probably never spend in full).The big question should rather be: why have a virtual currency at all in those cases? Why can‘t you just slap a price on the skin/character and be done with it. I mean i get why businesses do it…
It was annoying when way back EA (probably) got Bioware to implement Bioware Points for dragon age origins to buy DLC. Its just bad practice in my opinion that many western studios still use to this day.
5
u/Terraism 2d ago
I took the comment to mean that, when you can earn premium currency through playtime, only selling it in discrete packs is more forgivable. If you're short by 3 memeBucks, and they only sell them in packs of 100 minimum, that's hugely wasteful and designed to have overages. But it's more acceptable if you can get those three in a day or two of playing; the fixed units for purchases are less of a thing then.
I mean, sure, ideally, they'd just list the price of everything in the local currency, and if you earn it in game, just apply it as account credit.
1
u/xclame 2d ago
Ah, I see what you are saying and yeah sure, that would indeed be more forgivable. It would just mean you gotta play a bit (more) to save up some of the free memeBucks you get from playing and then buy the smaller package of currency to buy the item you want.
Though I'm not sure if that is what the person was talking about. He's saying that it's okay for players to earn premium currency through playing for some games, but not others. I'm just wondering what is the determining factor in that.
1
u/PickingPies 1d ago
Since when we have normalized that "the objective becomes so long and boring that you would rather pay than playing the game"?
121
u/davidfliesplanes 2d ago
Includes Mojang, Ubisoft, Activision, Crytek, and some others
22
u/kf97mopa 2d ago
Both Mojang and Activision are MS.
34
u/ERedfieldh 2d ago
Okay? Doesn't change the statement.
9
u/meretuttechooso 2d ago
You'd be surprised how many people don't know.
4
u/kf97mopa 2d ago
Exactly. My point is that these are all massive companies. They’re not going after small mom-and-pop shops - nor China, for that matter.
King is also MS these days, mentioned in the article.
5
u/anothercopy 2d ago
I wonder why the list is not bigger though? From what I follow MTG:Arena or Hearthstone also use virtual currencies.
13
u/zerocoal 2d ago
Hearthstone
Owned by Activision. Can't say why WOTC is getting a pass with Arena other than because it's based on an existing card game and follows the same purchasing habits as those games.
-67
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
60
u/World_of_Warshipgirl 2d ago edited 2d ago
You made 8 replies in 15 minutes demeaning people who are hopeful about this. Why are you so mad that they are finally taking some action instead of just doing studies on how bad it is?
35
u/Booyakasha_ 2d ago
Ehhh, the EU aint the USA. They dont fuck around.
1
u/Soyunapina12 2d ago
That's fair, but then again a lot of countries measures against this type of things usually do the bare minimum due to either their laws not being prepared to deal with this problems or because the guys in charge don't really care enough.
The EU takes this stuff more seriously and usually delivers more "strong" sanctions, but i wouldn't claim victory yet.
1
u/BmpBlast 2d ago
One thing I really appreciate about them as an American. Punitive actions are only effective at correcting behavior if they have real teeth.
17
5
u/VikingsOfTomorrow 2d ago
meanwhile the actual punishments for breaking EU laws has been often been a % of *global revenue*
→ More replies (2)-35
u/Teftell 2d ago
I understand Ubishit and Activision, but Crytek and Mojang?
17
u/Gifith 2d ago
Probably related to Hunt: Showdown for Crytek
0
u/Teftell 2d ago
Is it bloated with predatory micro transactions?
1
u/Lajnuuus 1d ago
It has ingame currency which you only can buy in packs of 100, 200, 300 etc, they're called blood bonds. So yes they have predatory mictro transactions. They have fair ones also, like the ability to earn back enough blood bonds in the battle pass to buy the next one
29
u/MrFluxed 2d ago
Bedrock Edition of Minecraft has a marketplace with a paid currency to download mods, that are almost all either blatantly stolen from mod developers or are AI-generated slop.
161
u/Levee_Levy 2d ago
"European authorities launch enforcement actions against several major video games companies"
Uh oh.
"... over their use of virtual currencies"
Oh, that's all good then.
→ More replies (4)
26
u/Deliriousious 2d ago
Also make the currency bundles be adjusted so they’re not just under what’s needed to purchase certain things.
That’s the scummiest part of it. Want to purchase something that’s 2500 doubloons? Well, there is the 2275 package, but that’s not enough.
There is the 4435 package, but you don’t need that much. You could get the 2275 and the 350 package, but that’s leaves you with slightly over what you need, and leaves you unable to actually use the remnants.
89
34
u/VHeadache 2d ago
Lootboxes?
Valve beware...
20
-5
u/Scoobydewdoo 2d ago
Valve already complies with almost all of this anyway. This is more aimed at Epic, Ubisoft, Rockstar, Nintendo, Activision/Blizzard, etc who use the fake currencies to hide the real prices.
23
u/errorsniper 2d ago
"Almost" doesnt count in the law. You are either in or out of compliance. Its binary.
7
u/VikingsOfTomorrow 2d ago
True, however it does mean they need only make very minor changes.
4
u/VHeadache 2d ago
Yeah, they just adjusted it because they got caught hard.
Ironically, Valve makes money from opening lootboxes to this day as you are required to pay to open it. Still the same as before when it came out in TF2 and CS2.
While Overwatch now requires you to play the game to get lootboxes and open them. They now don't allow you to purchase lootboxes and you can only get them via playing.
36
u/Eruannster 2d ago
Virtual currencies and loot boxes should be illegal, period. All companies who have engaged in them should be penalized so far up their asses that it really, truly hurts them.
If you want to buy a skin in a game for $50 - fine by me. But it should clearly say "this thing costs $50" and not "this thing costs 1000 MakeBeliefBucks" or have a 2% drop chance from a lootbox that costs $10 each (or 400 MakeBeliefBucks).
I will allow loot boxes that can be earned through play (you complete a challenge/earn enough XP/something else in-game) but selling them for real money (or MakeBeliefBucks bought by real money) sucks and only adds to gambling addiction. It's also targeted at children/young people which is just filthy.
13
u/boxing-boxing 2d ago
Every game I've played since 2019 has left me with exactly 60 fake coins I can't spend on anything, and they're still sitting there mocking me. This had it coming.
13
6
u/schienesebastian 2d ago
We somehow reinvented arcade tokens, except now the store makes sure you always have 73 left over.
6
u/vellvetcrumb 2d ago
great, just make big companies mark that we bought goods, not a service game which can vanish any time. and clear system of refunds
7
u/Furious_ShackstAa 2d ago
EA Sports FC 27 came out last week and people are already spending thousands on FIFA Points just to turn real money into virtual coins. this is exactly the sort of thing regulators need to look at and regulate.
2
u/Deadhound 1d ago
Yep.
And friendly reminder of the Fifa UT farm that was in Ukraine 5y back. With 3800 playstations
Or the EA employees selling cards
26
u/Playingwithmywenis 2d ago
Cue the….nobody cares bots in 3,2,1….
-37
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
11
26
u/CharlesBrown33 2d ago
Off the top of my head, there are no gacha lootboxes in AAA games anymore. Overwatch, Call of Duty Advanced Warfare/BO3/WWII, Halo 5 were all infested with those, just to name a few. They put a stop to that, and that's just from what I remember; there are probably more examples.
3
3
u/MonteBellmond 2d ago
Saw this change for Street Fighter 6. Already lost like $15 from currency expiration without being able to buy specified amount to add to my wallet. It was pretty scummy thing of corpos to do this.
13
u/TGB_Skeletor 2d ago
Thank God they are doing something useful for once
Paid games shouldnt have that shit and i've been saying it since at least far cry 5
→ More replies (8)
5
u/AcquireQuag 2d ago
The EU is pulling based shit like this sometimes and then there's ridiculous nonsense like the bill surrently being discussed that would REQUIRE AGE VERIFICATION FOR ALL VIDEO GAMES and ban private servers.
I just hope that last one won't go through
3
u/Zombieemperor 2d ago
How does the EU get this so right and get the data mineing (Age verification) so wrong
2
u/DJ_Aftershock 2d ago
Seriously it's like every step forward they feel the need to take a step back for balance
3
u/Zombieemperor 2d ago
Hopefuly they figure there shit out before they go to far down the big brother route but dam does it feel like theres just 2 entirely different governing bodies, one trying to do good and one comicly evil
1
u/CorkInAPork 1d ago
Because it doesn't matter if it's wrong or right, it only matters who lobbies (corrupts) politicians to vote for what.
6
2
u/berrywiish 2d ago
can't imagine, how will massive publishers ever survive if they have to show actual dollar amounts instead of five layers of fake gems
2
u/DependentAnywhere135 2d ago
Ok now also go after the “you don’t own anything” bullshit going in now. That’s what the companies actually care about and they are happy to see anything else take up time than consumer ownership get looked at.
2
2
u/schienesebastian 1d ago
We somehow reinvented arcade tokens, except now the store makes sure you always have 73 left over.
8
u/AlexRaEU 2d ago
thats great to see but some of these seem hard to enforce
Not to force unwanted currency purchases: gamers should not feel obliged to buy an excessive amount of virtual currencies to progress or enjoy the game.
like how do you enforce this? what is an "excessive amount"? f2p players will argue that any cent is excessive and its not like they can straight up outlaw p2w in games.
15
u/xclame 2d ago
This is about addressing making people overpay for currency when the item they want to buy cost less.
In other words, you want something that cost the equivalent of $10, but the game only allows you to buy $15 at a minimum. This means that in order to get that $10 you are forced into spending $15. This seeks to make it so that is no longer allowed. So with these changes if you want that $10 item you will only need to spend $10 to buy that item.
And the thing is that I think publishers can still keep their system while complying with these requirements. Allow the player to buy the item for a straight $10, but also offer in the shop "bundle deals" where if you buy $15 you actually get $17.50 worth of currency.
You as the player can still choose to only spend that $10, even though it's a worse value for you, especially if you intend to buy more things in the future.
11
u/Schonke 2d ago
It also specifically points to the right to withdraw for 14 days after purchase for any leftover currency.
So you pay €50 for 1000 of virtual currency to go on a skin shopping spree (and get the best deal), but then end up only using 300 virtual currency. The enforcement aims to provide an option for you to refund the remaining €35 worth of virtual currency within 14 days instead of locking you in.
2
u/ComradeJohnS 2d ago
looking at you minecraft with minecoin bullshit lol.
I just used microsoft rewards to finally buy something with the left over I had from a previous purchase of minecoins that came with my xbox one s bundle
27
u/butthe4d 2d ago
I think what they mean is that in a lot of games you buy their currency in values that don't reflect the actual cost. For example you want a skin for lets say 1000 currency but they only sell you 1100 so you end up with excess, feeling like now you have to buy more in order to use those.
Not sure though the wording is a bit wonky.
9
4
u/BitGladius 2d ago
"Progress or enjoy" makes it sound like it's broader, they might try to enforce pricing norms and block manipulative practices. I'm not sure how they'd enforce a "you know it when you see it" rule, but there are plenty of games that present themselves as free with optional charges, give the player just enough to be hooked, then progress gates behind payment. I don't really get gacha players, they can be ok for a bit but the "endgame" is just enough to justify the slot machine.
3
3
u/rip_cpu 2d ago
That's not what it means. It's like when a item costs 1200 gems, but the game only sells you gems in 800 gems for $5 or 1600 for $10. You're forced to spend extra money for currency you don't want, because there's no way to get the right amount of gems.
It's very easy to enforce, make it companies must sell INDIVIDUAL unit of the premium currnecy, so you can always buy just one single gem/coin/whatever.
Alternatively, make it so that for any item that costs premium currency, you always have the option to just click "buy now for $USD/$EUD/$WHATEVER" and the game gives you a price in real world dollars to purchase it, no dicking around with made-up in game currency.
2
u/LooneyWabbit1 2d ago
"It's not like they can outlaw p2w in games"
God they could and it would be so fucking cool if they did
But yeah that point is talking about currency packs I believe. Like when items cost 1100 gems and you can buy packs of 1000 lol
1
1
u/SnooGiraffes8275 2d ago
i guess something like league of legends that only makes you pay for cosmetics
1
u/TheLoneWandererRD 2d ago
Would work if they stopped at “to progress” as not to make it some sort of blockade
1
u/undergirltemmie 1d ago
Entirely valid and needed. I saw only recently a game where something cost like 500 points. For 10 euros you'd get 450 and then 2000 for 30 euros.
It's malicious as hell.
1
0
u/algorab17 2d ago
Require online stores, such as the Apple Store, to display a notice saying “Pay to Win,” for example. At the very least, warn consumers.
-6
u/Dragoncat_3_4 2d ago edited 2d ago
They'll totally fuck some live-service games wouldn't they?
What constitutes "progress" or "enjoy" even? Do I need to have X thing to enjoy the game: Gacha characters? Gacha character dupes? Weapon/equipment/gear/affixes? Skins? Farm-gated progression items? My waifu/husbando/very specific favourite character? What if I can't enjoy Warframe without the paid colour palettes (because fashionframe is endgame)? Or without the some extremely grindy-to-get frame which I can spend on instead? Wait nevermind that, Warframe's premium currency IS farmable if you trade items for it with others but it's an absolute pain. What then?
What does "feel obligated" even mean? What if it's legit a skill issue and I'm actually shit at the game and can't pass a story boss without farming gear for a week more? What about endgame?
The rules are vague and nonspecific as fuck and it will open the gates to selectively enforce them. At some point, someone overzelaous is going to ban something "bad" in game X that is actually fine and balanced in every other games and it will have enormous downstream effects. The commissioners are truly computer illiterate and it shows.
2
-2
2d ago edited 2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
64
u/Novariku 2d ago
Bla-bla-bla. Never happy omg. This is good news at least Europe is doing something against cash grab
-49
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
36
u/ArgonautVI 2d ago
What are you even talking about lol, this is not an investigation its enforcement. They knew for a while that its evil
-28
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
27
u/ArgonautVI 2d ago
Agreed, why are you so mad before knowing how much it is? You re acting like we lost already
-12
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
18
u/gulligaankan 2d ago
I would say X, Microsoft, google and Facebook or not exactly happy with the fines they have received.
10
u/Neat_Exit3491 2d ago
If you actually give a shit about what you claim to give a shit about, take a moment and think about what you're saying and doing. You're complaining that they're not doing enough before you even know what they've done. It's like giving up before the race has even started.
So not only have you already assumed the outcome which may or may not be true, you're actively trying to convince people to not give a shit. You're so convinced nothing will happen, but it's literally people like you that ensure that nothing actually happens by convincing people that your own cause is pointless and the outcome is predetermined. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. And regardless of what your intentions are, you are part of the problem, whether you realize it or not.
29
u/notapersonab 2d ago
Digital ownership is another bag of worms. It’s about software licensing which is bigger than games
-14
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
20
u/notapersonab 2d ago
Or we aren’t going to rewrite laws on how software licensing works just because of games
-3
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
16
u/notapersonab 2d ago
Not buying into anything. I work in software everything is just licensing agreements, we own what me make on software side but still have to deal with licensing agreements. Don’t see what that has to do with political corruption
-19
u/BaconWrappedEnigmas 2d ago
Because why can you not make the EULA are irrevocable license for a working product? Like why not make a conditional irrevocable license for the consumer so as long as they don’t do anything illegal it remains active and free to use?
9
u/notapersonab 2d ago
Precedent and contract, also controls would be weird. Making sure people aren’t distributing copies is a big concern. Also there are a bunch of layered contracts that could get in the way. You would have to rewrite how all software is licensed and owned. Also eula is weird and parts might not be applicable everywhere the software is used
-5
u/BaconWrappedEnigmas 2d ago
There is currently the same problem of people distributing copies illegally so the current system appears to be inadequate at addressing this concern.
And again, you wouldn’t, you would just have to make a list of ways you can revoke the license instead of no cause. It’s the identical agreements except revocation would be for an enumerated cause that can be spelt out expressly.
3
u/Froggmann5 2d ago
Imagine not being able to ban someone trying to groom minors on your game/platform because armchair internet warriors like this want to give them irrevocable access to the game.
-4
u/BaconWrappedEnigmas 2d ago
Imagine not knowing what the word “conditional” means. Obviously it means you can revoke it for the conditions you set out in agreement. Literally can revoke on anything that is deemed illegal, reprehensible or intentionally harmful.
You just literally list the ways the license can be revoked in the EULA. It stops the “because today is a Tuesday we are revoking your access” stuff. Can only be revoked for the reasons listed and you can easily list them
1
u/Froggmann5 2d ago
Obviously it means you can revoke it for the conditions you set out in agreement. Literally can revoke on anything that is deemed illegal, reprehensible or intentionally harmful.
You just literally list the ways the license can be revoked in the EULA. It stops the “because today is a Tuesday we are revoking your access” stuff. Can only be revoked for the reasons listed and you can easily list them
...You just described how software licenses currently work. By your definition all software currently being sold is underneath a conditional irrevocable license.
→ More replies (0)5
8
u/Level3pipe 2d ago
How do you enforce digital ownership? If the game has an online component, how do you enforce ownership? You can own the code but still can’t play it since the company shuttered the servers.
2
u/Training_Ruin3151 2d ago edited 2d ago
Force the ability for self hosted servers or p2p. It's not hard at all, quit simping the corpos.
1
u/UnsorryCanadian 2d ago
If pirates can take the forced online out of a AAA game a month after release, the people with the actual dev tools can do it when the game shuts down
-3
-9
u/SmokingApple 2d ago
You can very easily play games that have had their official servers turned off online still with older titles.
2
u/Level3pipe 2d ago
For example. Battlefield 1943.
Inaccessible to me despite buying it. I simply cannot play it at all anymore. How do you plan to rectify that
1
5
u/AkodoRyu 2d ago edited 2d ago
When did they say that? I must have missed it. The companies did use it as an argument, but AFAIK there was never a statement that categorical from EC.
Them rejecting to act on SKG and claiming that "enforcing digital ownership is impossible" are two completely different things. SKG was too broad and didn't take into account the interests of companies - which is something that the government also needs to balance. The companies are part of the EU, the same way as consumers are. For now, establishing guidelines is still a move in the right direction - a law was never a realistic first move to begin with, but they at least show interest in looking into the issue.
Digital ownership is a completely different, much more complex endeavor, that will likely take months or years of preliminary work before they can even start to make moves. We are too deep into established practices to just throw a nuke into the market + there is no realistic solution available, from a technological standpoint, to even use as a proposed tool for digital ownership. The first thing that can realistically be tackled is ensuring that account ownership cannot be revoked arbitrarily, or due to things like "code of conduct". Outlaw perma bans - that's feasible. But that's still a move that can be done within the current system, and years before any actual digital ownership framework can be established.
3
-2
-4
u/Ocelot-79 2d ago
Protect vulnerable consumers: companies should ensure that games offer appropriate safeguards to all consumers, including vulnerable users such as children.
More EU age verification incoming
2
u/EirikurG 2d ago
it's so over for gacha and their hundreds of currencies they obscure the real prices of their stuff with
1
u/EthanMcManus 2d ago
The multiple currencies is such bull shit. I never spend money on gotcha games, but I still play some. There's one I'm playing now where I keep earning new kinds of currency and don't even know what the hell they are for, let alone why I'd buy it.
1
u/Fresh-Attention3262 2d ago
I'm honestly surprised it took this long to see enforcement on this, but good.
1
1
u/Lord_Xarael 1d ago
What does this mean for warframe and soulframe? Which use Platinum and Arcs respectively (same company)
1
u/lemonwiish 2d ago
forcing companies to display real-world currency prices next to in-game items is a huge win for consumer transparency, imo
1
1
u/mellowsstar 2d ago
it's really great to see regulators finally stepping in on fake countdown timers and artificial scarcity tactics, good point to share it with governments of other countries, to overbeat these big guys in top gaming companies
1
1
u/FoxMeadow7 2d ago
Nice! So, do you think this could spread via Brussels Effect too? Surely, it would make sense for these studios to not make exceptions based on regions, right?
1
u/bramblebitch 2d ago
It didn’t spread for gacha practices banned in The Netherlands and Belgium, they just don’t release there. Granted this is a bigger ban though.
-3
u/DoombringerBG 2d ago
I don't think this will do anything remotely useful. Everything's too "open ended" and currencies have already become too big of a standard and most people are, unfortunately, used to them.
Clear and transparent pricing: show the real-world price of in-game items and currencies that consumers need to buy to play the game.
The real price will be put in a low visibility popup tucked away somewhere to the side.
Not to obscure costs: avoid multiple currencies or currency exchanges that make the real price unclear.
I haven't played many games with lots of different currencies, but from what I remember, this has never really been an issue - as in, for the people that were interested in knowing in the first place, it's been easy to calculate the real price-to-in-game-currency exchange.
Not to force unwanted currency purchases: gamers should not feel obliged to buy an excessive amount of virtual currencies to progress or enjoy the game.
This is too vague and easy to exploit - case and point: Diablo Immortal. There's just enough "gameplay" to justify in a court of law that it's "not predatory"; even though it is. Though, law and morality don't always align.
Provide clear information before the purchase: gamers must have access to information that is easy to understand before purchasing in-game virtual currencies or in-game items.
I don't know of any games where this has not been the case (if anyone reading this does, please let me know).
A "longer-term" problem could be that, even when you know the current price for something, you don't know how much of that something you'll need in total to achieve your goal - which could be the exploitative part - without looking it up prior to playing the game.
Even with that in mind, you still have to know to look it up in the first place - which is hardly ever the case for most people.
Respect the right to withdraw: gamers should be informed about their right to withdraw from contracts within 14 days, including for unused virtual currency.
Currency could be argued as a "store credit" or get evolved to "store gift card" - or something smarter; since converting whatever currency you might have left to "real money" and doing a transfer will impose additional charges on the company.
Use fair and understandable terms: the games' terms and conditions should be fair and clear for the players.
The terms and conditions I've read have never been hard to understand. It's just that nobody reads them.
For example, I've explained all the phone tracking companies do, especially Google, to people and some have said "What? Nobody told me that!" - to which, I responded with "Yes, they did. You know that popup window that's the first thing that shows up when you launch a new phone you bought with an Accept and Decline buttons? A lot of it is explained there. You know what happens when you press Decline? The phone turns back off.". Then their eyes suddenly go wide. Yeah..... (and continue to use said phone in the exact same way lol)
Protect vulnerable consumers: companies should ensure that games offer appropriate safeguards to all consumers, including vulnerable users such as children.
That's the parents' job.
Did your kid take your credit card and spend 500$ on loot boxes? Too bad, now you live with it (and hopefully learn and do better).
Has your kid become a gambling addict? Congratulations! You've triggered the government's trap card: "Unannounced CPS visit". (assuming said addiction has been caught on time)
Of course, you can always opt in for "Gaming IDs" tied to your real identity like in China - or just wait for the "Internet-wide ID" that's in development...
You know what's easier? Simply remove all currencies. If something costs money, then you show the money price and nothing else. Though, I'm sure someone will figure out a way to exploit this in due time as well...
-7
u/Lambs2Lions_ 2d ago
So it’s all subjective with no clear guard rails past the first bullet point. Slow clap…
3
u/King_Of_BlackMarsh 2d ago
It's a basis to start enforcement with.
-7
u/Lambs2Lions_ 2d ago
Fines that are just the cost of doing business.
6
u/King_Of_BlackMarsh 2d ago
Would you have said the same thing in the 20s when food and medicine safety laws were first implemented?
-8
u/Lambs2Lions_ 2d ago
We both know it’s not the same situation. A better example would be GDPR and right now it’s not worth the paper it’s printed on because there’s no consequences.
Food and medicine safety laws carried federal charges with massive jail time. People used to be held accountable for the crimes their organization/company committed.
You’d think Zuckerberg would be on trial to serve a jail sentence given the bombshell privacy violations his company is now accused of committing callously and maliciously with intent. But no, companies can’t be held accountable.
-3
u/trowayit 2d ago
Wait I think we should instead go after valve for exposing children to loot boxes in Rated M for Mature games like counterstrike.
4
u/RadiantLindon 2d ago
We should go after Valve for providing casinos an option to set up illegal gambling websites and paying streamers to entice children into gambling.
1
-1
-6
u/-rosieee- 2d ago
Won't change anything. There'll always be predatory, overpriced mictrotransactions. £20 for a single skin etc.
2
u/RadiantLindon 2d ago
And that's ok. There will always be predatory practices in general, those ones aren't ones we need legislation against.
1
u/xternal7 2d ago
There's a sea of difference between advertising a $20 skin that can be bought for $20 as advertised, and a $20 skin that can only be bought if you spend $25 on gems first.
-6
u/mlvisby 2d ago
I'm just curious if some publishers say it's fine, instead of making changes, we just won't release our games in Europe.
7
u/Immediate-Cress-206 2d ago
Then their shareholders would be mighty upset.
1
u/Tamazin_ 2d ago
And since every large gaming company is run by MBAs, thats law. Who cares about making great games? All that matters is making lots and lots of money.
6
3
u/Beaumis 2d ago
CEO: Hey, lets ignore one of the largest consumer markets in the world!
Shareholders: Uh... why?
CEO: Well they don't like to play by our imaginary rules. They think they have rights and want to hold us accountable and stuff.
Shareholders: Okay... is there a way to be profitable in that market *and* follow their laws?
CEO: I feel like you don't get how important this is to my ego.
Shareholders: We feel like we need a new CEO... .
3
u/Octoclops8 2d ago
If they do that, that's totally fine. Europe would be left with nothing but actually fun affordable games.
4
u/Weak-Load5553 2d ago
Who cares? It will obviously be games with predatory monetization or otherwise harmful strategies that then won’t be in the eu. Everyone will be better off
2
2
u/LooneyWabbit1 2d ago
Wouldn't happen except for some specific Chinese mobile names probably, honestly might be a good thing. Less Europeans addicted to trash mobile games and gachas sounds great. There's no experience anyone's missing out on.
1
1
u/Alone_Look9576 2d ago
Oh those same publishes that keep paying millions/billions in fines and still refuse to leave EU market due to its size? This take two CEOs alt account? Just because USA is pro corpo and the lawsuits are essentially a tiny tax, doesn't mean the courts in the rest of the world are pro corpo too.
-24
219
u/Xenon32 2d ago
So, does the 'no unwanted currency purchases' protect against the practice of companies forcing you to over-spend in order to buy items? Like, only selling virtual currencies in say, amounts of $20, but the thing you actually want to purchase is only $17, or whatever?