Developers Target "Vulnerable" Demographics
There are multiple cases of young children who use their parents’ credit cards to make in-app purchases, sometimes even going as far as spending thousands of dollars. It can’t be argued that a majority of freemium games are geared towards a younger audience, which is shown through their cartoonish app icons and naming conventions of in-game currency such as “magic stones” or “crystals.” The name change in the in-game currency exists so that the player mentally disconnects real money and in-game money as two separate entities, which makes it easier for the player to convince him/herself to purchase the in-game currency.
Children are also more likely to play mobile games and have less self-control as well as lacking the ability to manage money. In children under age 18, addictive behavior spikes even higher (Chamber para. 16). Kids have a stronger addiction to something they enjoy than adults do, which is especially apparent in their addiction to games.
Game developers target a younger audience because they have a greater chance of profitability. Children constantly play games, are more impatient than other demographics, and have less self control which makes it more likely for children to pay than an adult will. Also, in the cases where children purchase thousands of dollars of in-app purchases without their parent’s permission, the app store can be blamed for not taking the necessary preparations for children’s irresponsible spending. There is almost no chance that purchasing thousands of dollars on micro-transactions can happen as an accident, so the games are not at fault. The services that provide the platform for apps should impose a stronger security plan so only the rightful owners of credit cards are able to purchase in-app purchases.
Children are also more likely to play mobile games and have less self-control as well as lacking the ability to manage money. In children under age 18, addictive behavior spikes even higher (Chamber para. 16). Kids have a stronger addiction to something they enjoy than adults do, which is especially apparent in their addiction to games.
Game developers target a younger audience because they have a greater chance of profitability. Children constantly play games, are more impatient than other demographics, and have less self control which makes it more likely for children to pay than an adult will. Also, in the cases where children purchase thousands of dollars of in-app purchases without their parent’s permission, the app store can be blamed for not taking the necessary preparations for children’s irresponsible spending. There is almost no chance that purchasing thousands of dollars on micro-transactions can happen as an accident, so the games are not at fault. The services that provide the platform for apps should impose a stronger security plan so only the rightful owners of credit cards are able to purchase in-app purchases.
Manipulative Strategies
Players may purchase micro-transactions to get more entertainment out of the game, but opponents of the freemium business model see this as an unethical, manipulative way of making people pay for in-app purchases. These types of games are either called ‘pay-to-play’ or ‘pay-to-win’ games. As Craig Heier, a developer at Archer Communications, reports:
“‘Pay-to-play’ models limit a user’s gameplay duration, unless they buy a time extension or wait 24-hours until the game resets. Another criticism of freemium systems is when multiplayer games reward the biggest spenders who essentially ‘pay-to-win.’ These types of games reward spenders with unfair advantages and games boosts rather than awarding them to the most skilled players” (Heier 1).
The pay-to-play and pay-to-win games both demand players to purchase micro-transactions if they wish to enjoy the game to its fullest, which is frowned upon by the public because the games are advertised as “free.” However, the developers who try to exploit any of these methods do not end up succeeding in the app market because the players will recognize their objectives.
Stuart Dredge, a journalist from the guardian, has even spoken out about the greedy app developers in his article “Are Freemium Games Focusing Too Much on Monetisation and Not Enough on Fun?” he conveys his disappointment on the app developers. Dredge has seen good freemium games, but is troubled that “there are a lot of bad ones, and some good ones made bad by the way they try to make money” (the guardian). Ultimately, it is the game developers who decide if they want to make an app that can balance entertainment and profitability, rather than a game trying too hard to make the user pay.
“‘Pay-to-play’ models limit a user’s gameplay duration, unless they buy a time extension or wait 24-hours until the game resets. Another criticism of freemium systems is when multiplayer games reward the biggest spenders who essentially ‘pay-to-win.’ These types of games reward spenders with unfair advantages and games boosts rather than awarding them to the most skilled players” (Heier 1).
The pay-to-play and pay-to-win games both demand players to purchase micro-transactions if they wish to enjoy the game to its fullest, which is frowned upon by the public because the games are advertised as “free.” However, the developers who try to exploit any of these methods do not end up succeeding in the app market because the players will recognize their objectives.
Stuart Dredge, a journalist from the guardian, has even spoken out about the greedy app developers in his article “Are Freemium Games Focusing Too Much on Monetisation and Not Enough on Fun?” he conveys his disappointment on the app developers. Dredge has seen good freemium games, but is troubled that “there are a lot of bad ones, and some good ones made bad by the way they try to make money” (the guardian). Ultimately, it is the game developers who decide if they want to make an app that can balance entertainment and profitability, rather than a game trying too hard to make the user pay.