A recent action by Google in response to the European Commission is having a major impact on the mobile game business, and there are serious issues at stake. Essentially, the European Commission in conjunction with national authorities asked Google, Apple and the Interactive Software Federation of Europe in December of 2013 to take action on the following issues:

  • Games advertised as “free” should not mislead consumers about the true costs involved;
  • Games should not contain direct exhortation to children to buy items in a game or to persuade an adult to buy items for them;
  • Consumers should be adequately informed about the payment arrangements for purchases and should not be debited through default settings without consumers’ explicit consent;
  • Traders should provide an email address so that consumers can contact them in case of queries or complaints.

The EC’s recent press release announced that Google has complied with the request: “Google has decided on a number of changes. Implementation is underway and will be completed by the end of September 2014. These include not using the word “free” at all when games contain in-app purchases, developing targeted guidelines for its app developers to prevent direct exhortation to children as defined under EU law and time-framed measures to help monitor apparent breaches of EU consumer laws. It has also adapted its default settings, so that payments are authorized prior to every in-app purchase, unless the consumer actively chooses to modify these settings.”

With a regretful tone, the EC acknowledged that so far Apple has made no immediate actions in the matter, but in in a statement to Recode.net, Apple said that its iOS “controls go far beyond the features of others in the industry,” and added that they “are always working to strengthen the protections we have in place, and we’re adding great new features with iOS 8, such as Ask to Buy, giving parents even more control over what their kids can buy on the App Store.”

Here’s where the issue gets more complicated, and we may see some unexpected consequences. Sure, it’s been obvious for a while that there’s a problem with kid’s app as and in-app purchases. Parents were getting credit card bills with hundreds or even thousands of dollars in charges, and then discovered that that cute little game they let little Janey play on the tablet was pushing smurfberries by the $99 wheelbarrow. It shouldn’t be incumbent on the parents to police kid’s apps and investigate whether or not there are insidious in-app purchases lurking behind the candy-colored screens. Both Apple and Google have been tightening up the in-app purchase process to keep kids from running up a bill.

The big problem with the actions that are being taken is a fundamental one, and something that the industry needs to address. Or, at least, Apple, Google and Amazon should come to some agreement on thiss, because if those three set rules then you can bet the vast majority of apps will be forced to cooperate.

The issue is one of nomenclature. If, as the statement implies, Google is going to require every game with any form of in-app purchase to not use the word “free” in its description, that’s creating another problem while trying to solve one. All free-to-play games are most decidedly not equal. There are some where there’s very few in-app purchase options (with some work you could probably find some that had only one item for sale). Others are replete with virtual goods and extra time and all manner of ways to get people to shell out money. Is Dungeon Keeper really the same as Candy Crush and World of Tanks Blitz

For that matter, there sure seems to be a clear difference between time-gated games (where you can only play until your time or energy or other unit runs out, then you must wait for more to appear or purchase some) and games where you can play as much as you like, but virtual items are optional add-ons (like League of Legends or World of Tanks). Heck, even in Candy Crush if you don’t mind just playing a few minutes in a session (and regular bouts of frustration), you can play regularly without paying a dime — in fact, that’s a game challenge in itself, to see how far you can get without paying. That sure seems like it’s free to play. Isn’t removing that label verging into Orwellian doublespeak

Worse, we don’t really know what terms Google will choose to replace “free-to-play.” Or will they let each publisher come up with something, as long as it doesn’t include the word free Or is ‘free’ acceptable if including in the right phrase If every game is using its own nomecnlature, it will be harder than ever to figure out what type of game you’re about to download. And then Apple and Amazon may have entirely different words to describe the same thing.

The problem needs to be addressed quickly, before a new Tower of Babel is built. Perhaps some of the top publishers could weigh in with suggestions, but Apple and Google need to come up with some nomenclature proposals, and fast, that the industry as a whole can adopt. Perhaps there would be different terms used for games intended for kids than for games aimed at adults. Whatever the case, let’s not hamper the ability of publishers to make money here.

Look, if the terminology gets too far from describing what games actually do, publishers may do an end run around the whole mess. Create a free version of the game and version that includes the in-app purchase options, in much the same way we have free games that contain ads and ad-free versions that you pay a little extra for. But that’s messy and could easily result in a revenue drop. We really don’t know how that would play out.

Google, Apple, don’t rush into a bad decision here. Get some of the top publishers on the line and talk out the nomenclature issue. By all means, let’s keep kids from running up unintended bills — and for that matter, crack down on unscrupulous publishers who are aiming to exploit kids. But let’s not hurt the rest of the lucrative and fast-growing mobile game business while enacting proper protections for children. The best solution would be to keep non-kid’s games the way they are: Free to label as the publisher desires. The marketplace will quickly punish games that abuse the label of free-to-play, as many games have discovered to their sorrow.