App Store games

[jesus_wept]

I honestly didnt want to get involved in this again but i have to ask.

If you can play the entire game without paying anything, nothing is blocked and the gems (which they also give you for free) are only really used to boost productivity and speed up upgrades (the only reason to do this is impatience), why is it "a fraudulent or dishonest act or practice"? It's not like they kept it a secret that you can buy gems either. If you want to, although you certainly don't need to just to enjoy the game.

I feel like our definitions of fraud and dishonest are completely different.

[Aractus]

There's already been one settled class-action lawsuit against apple pertaining to this . Of course that was only in the USA, you didn't see apple offering to give anyone else a refund.

In this case an 8-year old spent $6,131 on in-app purchases, and there are many other examples. The EU are looking into taking action against apple , and here at home the ACCC is not happy at all and looking into this , and to quote the ACCC:

"Mobile apps are often available to download free in an online store but sometimes require significant in-app purchases to maximise the experience of the app. In-app purchases may include paying to use an ad-free version of the app, buying extra lives in a game, or paying to access extra content.

Not all apps sufficiently disclose at what point the user is making an in-app purchase. In particular, children using their parent’s device may not realise the in-app purchases are spending their parent’s money in the real world."

It took over two years of pressure from the ACCC just to get Apple to obey the consumer guarantees law here's an excellent example: - Apple rorted that customer for over 2 years refusing to obey by the consumer law! Essentially this is how that rort worked: all goods and services are guaranteed by a set of consumer guarantees, and kind of statutory warranty if you will. All products sold under $40,000 must be guaranteed by the manufacturer (as well as the retailer) against manufacturing faults for the expected life of the product, the product must be fit for the intended purpose, must and that guarantee pertains to providing repair, replacement, or depreciated refunds for the goods. Companies can charge a reasonable service fee, but most do not. Apple refused to honour consumer rights and insisted that if you did not purchase a warranty they would not guarantee their goods. Of course this is totally against the law, apple didn't care. So in the case above, the consumer purchased an iphone on a 24 month plan and within that time it developed a bonafide manufacturing fault - confirmed by Apple. When the consumer invoked his rights, apple refused to honour them claiming that all their products are guaranteed for 1 year. The consumer then informed apple that the law states that a product must not develop a manufacturing fault for the expected life of the product, and that since it was sold on a 24-month contract it is reasonable to expect the product life to be at least 24 months. Apple refused. And the rest you can read at the Whirlpool link.

Apple knows what they're doing with these in-app purchase games - it's a complete rort.

Now I know you don't believe me, so I'll tell you how Apple's business model works:

1. They don't pay any taxes in Australia.
2. In order to dispel Nokia and become the dominant mobile phone manufacturer, Apple came up with a way to make consumers keep on paying them: apps!

Now on a Microsoft device like say a PC, you can get as much freeware as you want and you can purchase many different programs. With Apple however, Apple must "approve" apps and they don't allow apps that compete with their own apps (i.e. anti-competition), and thus you can't just publish freeware straight to Apple - well unless of course you jailbreak your device first. Apple wants to control it all so that they get a cut of every app published.

Now think about it; does Microsoft take a cut of the money with another company write a program or a game for Windows? No, of course not.

3. Apple was still not satisfied with getting paid both for their device, and then for all the apps that 3rd party developers write, so they came up with another revenue-source: in-app purchases, so that now certain apps can keep on paying apple as well! Think of it like a ponzi scheme.


Now you keep saying "I don't purchase the upgrades in the game" - so what? I already told you that you aren't the one being targeted with those in-app purchases, Apple is targeting people who are vulnerable to addictive behaviour. And the biggest problem of all is that these games are marketed towards children. I can show you peer-review literature that shows that the long-term damage that similar styled addictive interactive games can do to children.

You keep saying that this has nothing to do with how poker machines work, but you failed to realise that it is exactly the same. No one is ever forced to put money into a poker machine; and if you play a 1c machine at 1c per spin you can sit at a machine for quite a long time - an hour or two - and only end up spending a few dollars. But the machines shape you towards spending more, and more. And if you don't believe that then you have to explain to me why 1/6th of regular EGM players in Australia - 95,000 people - are problem gamblers (have trouble resisting the temptation to gamble and spend more money then they can afford)? No one forces them to spend any money, and if they stuck to 1c a spin they'd never ever have a problem...

[jesus_wept]

I use android so your rant against apple is irrelevant to me, and even if I had an iphone apple not paying any taxes in Australia and ripping of Nokia is a huge shifting of the goalposts and is nothing to do with whether coc is a scam or a rort.

I'm going to bow out for good now because the argument has turned absurd. It's like trying to talk about evolution to a creationist.

[Aractus]

I didn't say they "ripped off Nokia" I said their business model was to charge for every app as a constant source of revenue from people who own apple products.

[Aractus]

I was using the example to show that Apple is known to rort customers by a. not paying any taxes, and b. not abiding by their obligations under the law. They know exactly what they're doing with in-app purchases, they're not designed for consumer benefit they're designed as a cascading part of their ponzi profit pyramid; and they're doing something that is not only morally wrong, but socially destructive as well because it creates an environment that when children play these games in particular, they are being exposed at a very young age to an intentionally addictive form of electronic entertainment similar to EGMs, and it is well known that children who develop addictive behaviours are more likely to experience addictive problems as adults. And this leads to crime, as well of course to many, many other problems. I can't stress this fact enough: any app-based games that has in-app purchases is totally inappropriate for children (anyone under 18), it is much better that they play any other video games that are not designed to throttle progress based on in-app purchases.

[Drich]

Those "games", as a recent episode of South Park rightly pointed out, are a complete scam that work on the principle of operant conditioning to addict its users to spending, much in the way EGMs (electronic gaming machines) do. Under no circumstances, whatsoever, should you let children play them.

They are a great tool. They teach self control and patience. Because in the end it is possible to be on the same level as one who spends money, it just takes a lot longer. That is why I have a few of them going. Once I hit a week long level up in one game I move to the next.

---

I didn't get my information from South Park, I just pointed out they did an episode on it.

It's operant conditioning plain and simple look it up. They games are designed on exactly the same principle that EGMs are. They're not based on skill or ability like say a regular arcade machine game, where it is possible for a skilled player to complete the game from start to finish without ever entering more credits. With apple store games, the game's progress is limited by how much you are willing to spend to advance your position, and a player that spends more money will always advance further that someone who doesn't. Just like EGMs reinforce the player whenever they have a "win", apple games also reinforce the player at irregular intervals as such to get the player hooked.

I am a top ten player in both of my guilds/squad, and I haven't spent anything. I've watched commercials and order my Mother's Day flowers through the game rather than some random online source... But again haven't spent any money. Just time. 5 to 15 mins aday for two years will buy anyone the same experience in the game as anyone who pays as they go..

The only difference is those who pay get board when they hit the max level and quit. Those who don't tend to stick around for the various up grades they make.

These are a great tool to teach your kids a life lesson in a fun way, but poor baby sitters. (They will not occupy large blocks of time without costing you money.)

[Anomalocaris]

Those "games", as a recent episode of South Park rightly pointed out, are a complete scam that work on the principle of operant conditioning to addict its users to spending, much in the way EGMs (electronic gaming machines) do. Under no circumstances, whatsoever, should you let children play them.

Usually in-game purchases require an online ID which is associated with an account tied to the device. If you simply don't share the ID associated with the device with your children, the "Scam" is defeated.

[Aractus]

Drich, I don't know how you do not understand this: the games are not designed for you or people like you. They're designed as a fishing net to catch people off-guard, with their defences down, and to elicit addictive behaviour through shaping via psychological cues - i.e. operant conditioning. They're not really designed as a form of entertainment, just as EGM's are not really designed as a form of entertainment; they're designed as a way to find people vulnerable to addictive behaviour and profit from these people.

It's really, really that simple, if you can't understand that then there's not much hope for you.

Games that throttle progress based on in-app purchasing are totally inappropriate for children, just as it allow children to play EGMs is. In fact it's completely illegal to allow a child to play an EGM - and it's illegal because they're addictive, because they're a form of gambling (that point I know doesn't apply to app games but the next one does), because they can spend a very large volume of money in a very short time, and also because there's peer review literature which shows that the earlier a person is exposed to this type of "game" in particular (EGM), even it it's not an EGM, and even if it's low value, is a risk factor for future addictive behaviour.

Children can go and play ten-pin bowling that costs $15 a game with no problem. They can go and play arcade games that cost say $1-2 a game with no problem. They can see a movie for $10-15. There are lots of things they can do with their money, where the value for the expense is made very clear. When people are conditioned to perceive the value differently to reality, this leads some people to spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars on a single app-game. It's bad enough for an adult, but even worse for a child since it will lead to much worse problems later on.

[jesus_wept]

I didn't say they "ripped off Nokia" I said their business model was to charge for every app as a constant source of revenue from people who own apple products.

I apogise for getting this wrong. I must admit I only skimmed through your gish gallop.

[pocaracas]

You know, aractus, if parents are half responsible, they won't hand their kids a game with free access to their credit cards.
If they're not, then you can blame that on genetics!

And yes, I agree that the game developers must be well aware of the profit downfall from such incompetent parenting and are probably counting on it.
See it from this perspective: it's a way to teach kids and parents how to control their accounts.... even if some only realize it a bit too late.