EU Commission announcement dated March 20th

Has GGG made a statement yet on what they will do to comply? Will they address the elephant in the room, or will the EU commission have to enter an enforcement action against them to force compliance?

I was born in & have lived in the EU my entire life - and I still had no clue what OP was on about, as they never bothered to tell us. I searched online, and I assume they mean this;

https://www.thegamer.com/european-union-guidelines-combat-predatory-microtransactions-virtual-currencies/

The tl;dr is politicians have said things, but there’s no new laws passed so it doesn’t matter. But game developers ‘should’ avoid using virtual currencies to mask the price of MTX. I’ve no idea what kind of “enforcement action” OP expects for a company located outside the EU doing things that aren’t even illegal in the EU. Like… that’s not how any of this works, lmfao.

Are they saying that people are too stupid to realize that 300 PoE coins cost $30?

"

ExsiliumUltra#5541 wrote:

Has GGG made a statement yet on what they will do to comply? Will they address the elephant in the room, or will the EU commission have to enter an enforcement action against them to force compliance?

lmao I can hear the drool from across the internet dude, calm down. You know damn well you can just google any statements they've made.

Here's some information since OP does not know what is going on at all once more:

- It is a statement from CPC (Consumer Protection Cooperation Network) which does not just apply to video games but just about anything, including food labeling for example.
- The statement is just that, a statement. It is not a law but guidelines for companies to manage and present their mtx in regards to the consumer.
- Companies technically don't have to follow these guidelines but it can very well lead to a lawsuit in more extreme cases.
- This only affects Europe.



As for PoE, only the 3rd point, "Practices that force consumers to purchase unwanted in-game virtual currency should be avoided" is relevant as you can end up with leftover points.

The CPC would likely sue all the mobile and P2W games first before they even find PoE because it's so far down on their list.

POE is not the target of these statement or even laws if European countries decide to make one. The main Target here P2W titles or gacha style games with lootboxes etc.

If we interpret those Advisories strictly you could maybe make a case against poe, but who would but money on that? I certainly wont.
In Europe we sometimes still believe in thing like compromise ;)

to clarify with the above list:
1. Price indication should be clear and transparent.
They are.

2. Practice obscuring the cost of in-game digital content and services should be avoided.
As we don't actually have abos or some kind of mtx plan, I don't see an issue here.
3. Practices that force consumers to purchase unwanted in-game virtual currency should be avoided.
This needs to be specified anyway, but one could make a case for stashtabs here.
4. Consumers should be provided with clear and comprehensive pre-contractual information.
They are.
5. Consumers’ right of withdrawal should be respected.
Tricky, but this will be mandatory in the EU anyway, external services may be forced to adhere that too, depending on the popularity of the product. Currently as far as i know, it isn't.
6. Contractual terms should be fair and written in plain and clear language.
It is.
7. Game design and gameplay should be respectful of different consumer vulnerabilities.
what? xD

"

tsunamikun#0433 wrote:

7. Game design and gameplay should be respectful of different consumer vulnerabilities.
what? xD

This is calling out predatory practices particularly in advertisement, to prey on peoples psychological implies (louder in some people), to provide some legal recourse to punish a company found preying on Fear on Missing Out, and gambling addictions. I could see an argument for PoE in this way (limited time supporter packs, limited time boxes, etc). But the windows in PoE are MUCH larger than most of the good 'bad examples' in the industry.

"

Pestilence_PoE#6339 wrote:

Are they saying that people are too stupid to realize that 300 PoE coins cost $30?

Yes, they are saying that. And yes, they are often correct. I've seen people struggle to realize that $300 is $300. Humans have a really bad ability to conceptualize numbers, and to transfer concepts. It's a big reason WHY companies use 'Store Points' rather than flat dollars. People don't feel like they're spending money when they spend points. Same reason why most companies find a way to give a few 'store points' for free (or part of an initial buy in). Because when a user spends in a store, they become more likely to spend more.

"

Northern_Ronin#6465 wrote:

"

tsunamikun#0433 wrote:

7. Game design and gameplay should be respectful of different consumer vulnerabilities.
what? xD

This is calling out predatory practices particularly in advertisement, to prey on peoples psychological implies (louder in some people), to provide some legal recourse to punish a company found preying on Fear on Missing Out, and gambling addictions. I could see an argument for PoE in this way (limited time supporter packs, limited time boxes, etc). But the windows in PoE are MUCH larger than most of the good 'bad examples' in the industry.

Thank you for clarifing that, could be formulated better i guess

"

Northern_Ronin#6465 wrote:

"

Pestilence_PoE#6339 wrote:

Are they saying that people are too stupid to realize that 300 PoE coins cost $30?

Yes, they are saying that. And yes, they are often correct. I've seen people struggle to realize that $300 is $300. Humans have a really bad ability to conceptualize numbers, and to transfer concepts. It's a big reason WHY companies use 'Store Points' rather than flat dollars. People don't feel like they're spending money when they spend points. Same reason why most companies find a way to give a few 'store points' for free (or part of an initial buy in). Because when a user spends in a store, they become more likely to spend more.

yeah.

the entire practice of making you buy points which you then spend on mtx is based around the idea that spending 300 points is removed from the feeling of spending $30. that essentially yes, people are too stupid to give 300 points the same importance, the same attachments as they do to seeing the price in a standard currency they are used to spending.

the eu isnt saying that, the people who invented the system based the entire idea on it. its an intentionally predatory practice.




we as gamers are ok with ggg using coins and using loot boxes because it doesnt have P2W. we think the lack of the game destroying aspect of p2w shows a moral standard and upholds the games integrity, and for us as gamers it does. however laws which seek to remove predatory practices like coins and random loot boxes will likely make very little distinction between poe and other games.

I apologize for the phrasing and no link, did not think I was able to create links
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_831

My elephant in the room comment is related to RMT. In my mind it could be a possible concern if the EU authorities decide that companies that have open trade that can be exploited, are not doing enough to curtail it, or are not doing enough to protect their IP from being abused in this manner. This has all kinds of follow on affects that could run afoul of whatever actual legislation they come up with. Paying an entry fee to a poker tournament, in order to get chips and a seat at the table to hopefully win one of the prizes, that is either cash or something that can be turned into cash. Is technically not that far from buying points to get premium stash tabs, to be able to post something you "won" for someone to "Buy" with Fake Virtual $, that there is then a way to turn into $$. As someone already pointed out, the authorities may not make the distinction that GGG already disallows this in the TOS if it is seen that they are not actually doing much to stop the practice or enforce the TOS.