MSE News: Warning: Are your kids playing these iPhone app games?

EmmaHerts

lazyjack wrote: »

OK, answer this. How can you possibly justify a free game (app), which is pretty much designed for kids, having the option to make an in-app purchase for £69 ?

Unfortunately, it is very clear what the app writers' intentions are.

It is naive to assume all games are designed for children.

lazyjack

EmmaHerts wrote: »

It is naive to assume all games are designed for children.

I don't recall anyone stating that all games are designed for children. Take a look at this list with their age rating though:

4+
Bubble Galaxy with Buddies
Hay Day
Jurassic Park Builder
Marvel War of Heroes
Real Racing 3
Smurfs' Village

9+
College Girl
Subway Surfers
Zombies vs Ninja

12+
The Simpsons Tapped Out

Now try telling me that they are not designed for children.

fiendishlyclever

lazyjack wrote: »

I don't recall anyone stating that all games are designed for children. Take a look at this list with their age rating though:

4+
Bubble Galaxy with Buddies
Hay Day
Jurassic Park Builder
Marvel War of Heroes
Real Racing 3
Smurfs' Village

9+
College Girl
Subway Surfers
Zombies vs Ninja

12+
The Simpsons Tapped Out

Now try telling me that they are not designed for children.

I play several of those and I'm far from being a child. I've even made some in-app purchases (from my iTunes card fuelled, 15min window disabled account). As said earlier, there are worse things to be found online than in-app purchases - you can't be refunded for a child being scarred by seeing pornography. If you give your child a device you should take responsibility for understanding how it works. Period.

matttye

lazyjack wrote: »

I don't recall anyone stating that all games are designed for children. Take a look at this list with their age rating though:

4+
Bubble Galaxy with Buddies
Hay Day
Jurassic Park Builder
Marvel War of Heroes
Real Racing 3
Smurfs' Village

9+
College Girl
Subway Surfers
Zombies vs Ninja

12+
The Simpsons Tapped Out

Now try telling me that they are not designed for children.

I play the Simpsons Tapped Out and I've bought several things in it, for 69p at a time. I would never spend £69 on it, admittedly, but some people do. One of the moderators on the official forum has spent about £2k on the game.

The kids could just as easily go and buy a crapload of music from the iTunes store or a load of apps... they need to be supervised or the password should not be given.

family6

Well for those of you, who shock horror, allow your kids to play with technology in the 21st century, maybe don't sit looking over their shoulder every minute as you may have more than one child, or omg even need a loo break then-
BEWARE
PEPPAS LUCKY DIP
A roulette wheel gambling game using the Peppa appeal for little uns, EVERYTHING costs.

I for one am very grateful to Martin as even though my kids know I will only let them play free games I admit to not knowing about the 15min window, which I blocked easily enough once I knew it was there (when it was brought up a while ago)
ETA and the in app purchases which is more relevant to this one

wozearly

Jimbo96 wrote: »

...which can very easily be turned off in the Settings...the extra 20 seconds required to turn off the In-App Purchase options should not impact you too much.

Why should the vast majority of adults who purchase these devices have to go through extra steps just to turn back on features that you want turned off by default just because of the lazy minority who buy them to babysit their kids for them?

Actually, I'd be in favour defaulting to the less convenient / more secure approach, on the same basis of standing up for Stupid People's Rights that Martin has championed in the past.

As you say, its ludicrously easy to change, isn't it. So why not default to protect customers rather than default to convenience for app developers using the freemium / IAP model?

Jimbo96 wrote: »

Personally, I would not buy £69 worth of 'gems' in a game for myself or my kids, but clearly some people do, and get enjoyment and presumably "value" out of it. That's up to them.

I expect almost nobody (if anybody) buys the £69 pack. That's not why its there - its there because it encourages purchases of lower value packs. This is a phenomenon called price anchoring, where the existence of a £69 pack makes the £1.99 look reasonable in comparison, which increases the likelihood people will make the £1.99 purchase - or any purchase at all.

Its a marketing trick that's been around a long time, and its provably effective. You might not think you (or anyone) would be influenced by it, but people aren't always as rational as they think.

On that note, I expect app developers will viciously resist any call to apply a low maximum cap on in-app purchases when the app is rated 4+, 9+ or 12+ (implying children are potentially a target audience), because this will reduce the average amount people purchase as well as the number of purchases due to the removal of the price anchoring effect, irrespective of whether many children play it or spend money on it.

Apple is likely to side with the app developers, as they get a slice of everything that goes through the iStore, so this change would hurt them too.

matttye

wozearly wrote: »

Actually, I'd be in favour defaulting to the less convenient / more secure approach, on the same basis of standing up for Stupid People's Rights that Martin has championed in the past.

As you say, its ludicrously easy to change, isn't it. So why not default to protect customers rather than default to convenience for app developers using the freemium / IAP model?

Sounds good to me. I am generally in support of the default settings being most secure and idiot-proof, with the option for advanced users to disable such options if they wish.

Of course, there is a slight problem with this too. Will users who enable in-app purchases and disable the 'require password immediately' option still be able to get their money back? A company could argue that they willingly disabled security features and therefore the transactions are fair.

wantmemoney

The main reason the option to switch off automatic IAP is there is to protect Apple and the developers in case of Class Action in the US for example.

If Apple genuinely intended parents to be able to use it they would have more clearly 'sign posted' it's existence.

matttye

wantmemoney wrote: »

The main reason the option to switch off automatic IAP is there is to protect Apple and the developers in case of Class Action in the US for example.

If Apple genuinely intended parents to be able to use it they would have more clearly 'sign posted' it's existence.

Why would they? There's a plethora of options in iOS that they don't 'more clearly signpost.' Like password lock for example.

wozearly

matttye wrote: »

Sounds good to me. I am generally in support of the default settings being most secure and idiot-proof, with the option for advanced users to disable such options if they wish.

Of course, there is a slight problem with this too. Will users who enable in-app purchases and disable the 'require password immediately' option still be able to get their money back? A company could argue that they willingly disabled security features and therefore the transactions are fair.

Arguably no different from the current situation - as the options to disable IAP and force password entry on all purchases exist currently, the developers could argue its reasonable to assume its the phone owner making / approving the purchases and Apple could argue that as features designed to prevent this weren't activated its the fault of the phone owner.

Both of those stances are reasonably watertight from a legal perspective, although not necessarily so in the court of public opinion.

If the default was made stricter, it would place both Apple and the app developers in a stronger position, as a positive action to move away from the secure default had been taken, which shift onus onto the phone owner to explain why they didn't recognise the consequences of loosening those restrictions.

On the other hand, lets assume that Jimbo96 is right and the 'vast majority' of people dislike the more restrictive setting. The same barrier of laziness / lack of awareness that has caused parents to not close this loophole would then apply to the majority of users who would leave the default turned on. Because that's, frankly, what most people do.

The more restrictive "enter a password for any purchase" and "you need to enable IAP first" add two additional hurdles to IAPs in the form of hassle. That is going to impact IAP sales, because people will abandon the process when faced with even a small barrier. If that applies to the majority rather than a minority, that hurts the revenue streams of both Apple and the app developers in order to protect the minority from accidental harm.

Call me a cynic, but I expect a similar approach that we see with banking fees to occur. The opening position will be "Its your fault, we've done nothing wrong". That will move to "Okay, we'll refund the money as long as you accept its your error" for customers who are persistent in their complaints. If too many customers complain, the iron curtain will drop and all complaints will be denied to stem losses. Then a regulator will get involved, ultimately side with the public, and finally Apple will reluctantly agree to change its practices.

After many arguments, a new model will be found. People who were skilled at avoiding the need to pay under the old model will then loudly complain that their loophole is being closed down to benefit (insert group of less skilled/aware/time-free/intelligent people here).