Post by Danjal on Jul 6, 2014 19:44:32 GMT
They have much less problems with the actual abusive practices - aslong as they're not being called "free".
It'll have to go one step further to prevent abusive business models, but they'll never get that one off the ground because it would potentially infringe on SO MANY existing business models that the cascade of domino's would be gigantic.
Legalese is always being pedantic about specific terminology and choices of words. As long as they don't call it *free*, its fine.
Thats it. If it carries the name (or description) "free" - then it should be completely free to play. No transactions whatsoever.
Meaning that games that offer microtransaction shortcuts are also questionable to carry the descriptor F2P.
But as long as you don't carry the descriptor? You're free to do what you want.
Now what I wonder is... What will happen once they start going against any business model that currently ends up racking up the most kids maxing out parents (or grandparents) creditcards. On the basis that these are exploiting the behaviour of these kids to obtain additional cash. Effectively, going against all companies that take advantage of whales.
But legally speaking, they can't really do that without having it cascade into other businesses aswell. So the odds of that ever happening are next to none.
And yes... This has obviously been the major reason why Peter and the cans have always been denying the term "F2P".
"No no, Godus isn't F2P" - well really, if it waddles like a duck and it quacks like a duck, I don't give a crap what you call it, its still a duck.
No matter what officials or legalese has to say about it. You're still making use of that very same business model.
