We live in a world where the definition of free has been twisted and changed. It’s common to see a game or app on a store that claims it is free, only to be whacked with a pay wall and in-app purchases that are often required to make the app do anything meaningful. It’s been like that for a while, and it’s especially dangerous for parents who have kids with tap happy fingers. That’s why Google is redefining what free is.
Starting this September, Google will no longer label an app or game as free if it has any form of in-app purchases. In addition to this, Google will add more security to in-app purchasing, forcing additional authorisation every time a transaction is started. Google has stated that these changes will take effect in European regions later this year, but it probably won’t be longer until it becomes a standard.
Question is, why change now? Well we’ve been hearing about some of the horror stories some parents have had to deal with regarding their children blowing thousands on phone apps. It has been a topic of debate recently, especially in terms of who is to blame in these situations. The European Commission and national authorities have ruled in favour of the consumer, and are now requesting that all “trade associations” put measures in place to curb what they call “direct exhortation to children”. Google is the first to announce their compliance, with Apple yet to outline any reform on their side.
It will be interesting to see whether these changes are implemented globally in the future, because this is definitely not a concern in Europe alone. Accidental purchases still make a lot of money for Apple and Google, and one could easily argue that it’s the parent’s fault for not keeping a closer eye on their kids. On the other hand, listing a game as free when it clearly isn’t can be extremely confusing, to both parents and kids alike.
So maybe changing the definition of free back to what it is actually meant to indicate isn’t such a bad thing. It would definitely mean there will be far less free apps on digital stores later this year.
Last Updated: July 21, 2014
Spaffy
July 21, 2014 at 09:08
Well there goes 90% of the apps on the play store.
Sir Rants A Lot Llew
July 21, 2014 at 09:14
They aren’t going to disappear. They are simply just not going to be labled “free”
Spaffy
July 21, 2014 at 09:18
Which is a shame, as most of these games you can’t continue without paying for.
Sir Rants A Lot Llew
July 21, 2014 at 09:20
At least these games won’t appear in the free sections anymore. Now at least you know that you are purchasing a game that requires in-app to continue playing
ToshZA
July 21, 2014 at 09:22
The free section will now be empty of games.
Sir Rants A Lot Llew
July 21, 2014 at 09:23
I’m ok with that. It forces devs to provide better quality now to be competitive.
Spaffy
July 21, 2014 at 09:24
Jip, 90% less games
Verrayne
July 21, 2014 at 13:11
and that’s a good thing.
Rince&pop
July 21, 2014 at 09:10
Good for you google. Hopefully this will curb this scourge.
Kensei Seraph
July 21, 2014 at 09:12
Good, although I’m now curious as to what these apps will be labelled as from now on.
Spaffy
July 21, 2014 at 09:14
Kak expensive?
Sir Rants A Lot Llew
July 21, 2014 at 09:15
Most likely “Freemium”
The correct term for games that house in-app purchases to make money
Hammersteyn
July 21, 2014 at 09:15
Credit card crunchers?
Sir Rants A Lot Llew
July 21, 2014 at 09:16
hehe. Candy “Credit” Crush
Hammersteyn
July 21, 2014 at 09:16
XD
Sir Rants A Lot Llew
July 21, 2014 at 09:14
Good.
It’s about time too. We’ve been complaining about this for a very long time.
Hammersteyn
July 21, 2014 at 09:16
Funny thing is, people will spend a shit load of cash on Candy Crush and Kim Kardashians game. Mobile gaming FTW
Alien Emperor Trevor
July 21, 2014 at 09:16
Good. These fuckers need to be reined in. It’s deceptive marketing at its worst.
I bought the Prince of Persia side scroller for my phone because I thought it would be really cool nostalgia gaming. Imagine my joy when I discovered it too had in-app purchases. So never mind F2P.
Sir Rants A Lot Llew
July 21, 2014 at 09:18
http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130910011414/mlp/images/2/23/Grumpy_cat_'good‘.jpg
Ryanza
July 21, 2014 at 09:20
free to get but not free to play.
I still don’t understand why someone would use real money for virtual in-game money. Why would someone use real money to dress a damn avatar, horse armor, Capcom, ect. Why would someone spend more money for on disc DLC.
I’m not a fan of wasting money on shit. Last DLC I bought was for GTA 4, LATD, BOGT. That I felt was worth it.
Add money to continue playing, fuck off.
Alien Emperor Trevor
July 21, 2014 at 09:24
Oh, speaking of this kind of crap – I noticed last week that ES:O has a mount DLC… $15 for a horse. No armour included.
Kensei Seraph
July 21, 2014 at 09:24
O_O
ToshZA
July 21, 2014 at 09:27
LOL! Hahahahahahahahahaha.
No.
Sir Rants A Lot Llew
July 21, 2014 at 09:30
Ooof
Skyblue
July 21, 2014 at 10:36
Lol
Skyblue
July 21, 2014 at 10:36
I thought Plants vs Zombies 2 got it right. The game was still complete and fair to play without having to pay a cent. Your progression was never stumped or delayed by a forced “pay to win” model.
Weanerdog
July 21, 2014 at 11:54
Have you played the new medieval stage, well I have not but when my wife plays it she could be channeling Colin Farrell. I think the difficulty has gone up to ensure that you might want to spend a cent or two. I suppose that it does not help that my youngest is famous for using everyone’s powerups.
Skyblue
July 21, 2014 at 12:53
Lol! I haven’t actually tried it yet. Will download the update today. Love me some PvZ.
Craig Lotter
July 21, 2014 at 13:54
Sounds like a good idea to me, particularly making purchases harder. Nothing worse that toddler emily getting her hands on my phone!