Gameloft

[~Scootaloo 440]

Related: http://mlpforums.com/topic/54221-mane6-have-not-died/?p=1286457

  On 2013-03-19 at 12:10 AM, Shoboni said:

 

  On 2013-03-19 at 12:07 AM, ~Scootaloo said:

Not really. Since Mane6 didn't have what they needed to (legally) make the game it got shut down.   Also why are you trying to bring Gameloft into this? they did the right thing and that's why they didn't get a C&D letter while Mane6 did.

 

Because they exist to screw people over, all they care about it draining people's pockets, they made a game that costs hunderds of dollars to access all the content, yet has far less gameplay then Fallout GOTY did at only $40 full retail.    But I'm not getting in further into this unless you want to go start a thread about it.

Responding to the text in bold: no they don't, they exist to make a product and the make money off it and (shocker) that is exactly what they are doing. Hundreds of other Facebook games pull the same crap too. Is it correct? not really, but its not like they beat the sh*t out of and steal your money. People willingly pay for it.

 

If you're shocked that Gameloft exists to make money then I advise you to look at this:

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0jQ0SgFLKU[/youtbe]

 

Edited March 19, 2013 by ~Scootaloo

[Nohbdy 4,108]

  On 2013-03-19 at 12:18 AM, ~Scootaloo said:

Responding to the text in bold: no they don't they exist to make a product and the make money off it and (shocker) that is exactly what they are doing. Hundreds of other Facebook games pull the same crap too. Is it correct? not really, but its not like they beat the sh*t out of and steal your money. People willingly pay for it.

Quick comment from me, Scootaloo. While Hasbro's actions are perfectly understandable from a business perspective, it's different from an ethical perspective. Just because they can charge exorbitant prices doesn't mean doing so is right, or that the game isn't a piece of shit because of it. The freemium model is, quite frankly, meant to draw people in, get them addicted, and then strip them of their cash.

 

EDIT: Also, a big problem with the game was that kids tended to perform in-app purchases without parental consent. Gameloft likely knew about this, and decided to take advantage of it.

Edited March 19, 2013 by Twilicorn

[Display Name 448]

My Gameloft account was destroyed along with my iPod touch.

 

I guess iPod's aren't waterproof.

Unless, that's what they want us to think?!

Edited March 19, 2013 by KToadstool

[~Scootaloo 440]

  On 2013-03-19 at 12:58 AM, Twilicorn said:

Quick comment from me, Scootaloo. While Hasbro's actions are perfectly understandable from a business perspective, it's different from an ethical perspective. Just because they can charge exorbitant prices doesn't mean doing so is right, or that the game isn't a piece of shit because of it. The freemium model is, quite frankly, meant to draw people in, get them addicted, and them strip them of their cash.

 

EDIT: Also, a big problem with the game was that kids tended to perform in-app purchases without parental consent. Gameloft likely knew about this, and decided to take advantage of it.

Well doesn't the game need a parent or whoever pays for it to enter a password or something before the purchase is authorized? if not then that is kind of a dirty move on Gameloft's part.

[Nohbdy 4,108]

  On 2013-03-19 at 1:11 AM, ~Scootaloo said:

Well doesn't the game need a parent or whoever pays for it to enter a password or something before the purchase is authorized? if not then that is kind of a dirty move on Gameloft's part.

Very dirty move. You'd be surprised at how far kids can go when it comes to manipulating their parents. A few articles detailing the phenomenon:

 

Five-year-old runs up $2,500 in-app purchase tab with Apple - March 1, 2013

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

  Quote

Parents who regularly hand their iDevices over to their children, take note: you can still be burned by kids making in-app purchases. The BBC published a story on Friday highlighting a five-year-old's impressive feat in running up a £1,700 iTunes bill—about $2,500—after his father entered a passcode to allow him to download a "free" game from the App Store. The details of the situation reveal a series of unfortunate events that led to the truly epic tab, though Apple has since refunded the money.

 

There are a few things the Kitchens could have done better when their son, Danny, began using an iPad to play games. The article doesn't specify whether Danny's father entered a passcode for the device, for the App Store, or within the app itself, but the last scenario listed seems most likely. Entering a password to download apps in the App Store used to mean the user could begin charging in-app purchases without re-entering that password for 15 minutes as the default iOS behavior.

 

Apple made that more difficult with iOS 4.3 in early 2011 by requiring the App Store password a second time when in-app purchases are made. Assuming the family's iPad was running a more recent version of iOS, it sounds like Danny's father entered his password when Danny began to make purchases, not realizing what he was authorizing.

Danny apparently began buying stuff right away, and the Kitchens were even notified by e-mail of charges being made to their account: "The next day the Kitchens received e-mails which itemized successive £69.99 purchases, but they were believed to be sent in error and dismissed," wrote the BBC. The total charges of £1,700 were only brought to the family's attention thanks to a call from the credit card company.

 

The Federal Trade Commission said in 2011 that it would look into Apple's marketing of in-app purchases to children. Apple recently settled a class-action lawsuit over kids running up in-app purchase tabs, an issue that caught the attention of the Federal Trade Commission.

 

Apple also provides a way to prevent in-app purchases altogether in its parental controls (found within Settings > General > Restrictions), though many parents are still unaware of these controls or how to use them:

Parental controls are a must if you exist in a world with children in it.

The parental controls also allow users to set a time limit for how long you can make purchases until having to enter the password again: the default is 15 minutes, but you can also set it to "immediately" if you want iOS to ask you every time. Setting up such controls—and understanding what your child is asking for when he or she wants a password entered—can help cut down on these incidents. After all, you can't always count on Apple to issue a refund, especially if you're the one who's entering the password.

 

 

'Immoral' My Little Pony game tempts kids to spend £70 on 'virtual gems' - Februrary 28, 2013

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

  Quote

 

Often, it costs little or nothing to download a game. But the true horror comes from charges for additional features, known as in-app billing, which can total thousands of pounds once you or your kids start playing.

Key Points

• My Little Pony game charges hefty in-app fees
• Priciest in-app purchase costs £69.99
• But the game is aimed at kids

What's more, security on many devices is so lax, it's easy for kids to spend.

MoneySavingExpert.com is calling for regulation to be introduced to ensure kids aren't exploited by games. There are ways to prevent this nightmare scenario (detailed at the end of this article).

The My Little Pony app, developed by Gameloft, is free on iTunes and Google Play. Featuring colourful cartoon ponies, it's clearly aimed at young children.

Yet it charges up to a mammoth £69.99 for in-app purchases. That fee is for a virtual 'mountain of gems' (see pic, below).

We were tweeted by one user who said: "My little girl ran up a £420 bill on gems – I phoned Apple and it refunded the full amount."

Forum users have also reported kids running up huge bills on apps including The Simpsons: Tapped Out and The Smurfs, as well as similar games on Facebook.

Only last week, we reported how two boys racked up a mega £3,200 mobile bill playing a seemingly innocent game on an iPhone belonging to their dad (see the My 6yr-old spend £3,200 playing iPhone game MSE News story).

Mail Online is today running a story on a five-year-old who inadvertently spent £1,700 downloading extras on the 'free' Zombies Vs Ninjas iPad game.

 

Disgusting and immoral

Compare Samsung mobile deals to find the cheapest

MoneySavingExpert.com creator Martin Lewis says: "It's pretty clear-cut that the My Little Pony app is not aimed at adults. This is a specific children's game and the fact it encourages children to spend £69.99 at a time on a 'mountain of gems' is disgusting and immoral.

"The makers of this game should be ashamed of themselves, the firm licensing this game should be ashamed of itself and the companies that sell this app, which tries to bait children into spending this much, should be ashamed of themselves.

"This is not a trivial issue, it is targeting children in a way that is inappropriate. If companies such as iTunes and Google which allow software like this to be sold in their stores won't take action, we need some kind of regulation to ensure kids aren't exploited in this way and that parents' pockets are protected."

When we asked the major providers of mobile purchases last week, Apple, Blackberry and Google (which runs Android software) refused to answer or take responsibility for why it is so easy to spend money without putting in a password, especially as the default settings are often the least secure.

MoneySavingExpert.com is also calling for UK customers to get the same compensation as US consumers, now American iPad and iPhone users whose kids ran up huge bills making in-app games purchases could be refunded as a result of a US lawsuit (see the Apple UK urged to refund app cash MSE News Story).

 

'Great value' — really?

Gameloft says all its "freemium" games contain warnings about in-app purchases, and if a device is configured correctly, it is impossible for a child to make any purchase without parental permission (see below for how to do this).

A spokesman for Gameloft says: "Our games are enjoyed by players of all ages and My Little Pony is no different. The higher price points are designed for adults and hardcore gamers and offer great value for these segments.

"Purchases are entirely optional, you don't have to pay to play. In-app purchases provide a great way to progress faster and get your hands on additional content, but they're never a requirement."

It adds that customers who encounter problems or have any questions can contact Gameloft by emailing support@gameloft.com.

 

Prevent MASSIVE mobile bills

Depending on your phone make and/or model, there are a number of precautions you can take to limit your chance of being hit with a big bill:

• Protect your passwords. Children are smart — they can remember passwords and Pins. There have been countless reports on the forum from parents whose children have memorised passwords and used linked accounts and credit cards. To stop kids racking up a big bill on your device, change passwords regularly and make sure they're always hidden from children if you don't want them to use them.

   

• Always supervise your child. Ensure you know what he or she is downloading, and any extra costs they may be incurring.

   

• Restrict in-app purchases with a password/Pin.

   

  Apple. Tap Settings > General > Restrictions, then choose whether you need to input your password every time you make a purchase, or whether writing it once means you don't need to do again for 15 minutes.

   

  Android. Set a Pin with your Google Play account. All purchases will then require the Pin. Devices don't come with this feature already activated, so make sure you do it before giving your phone to a child.

   

  Blackberry. Making in-app purchases on a Blackberry is possible once you've logged in with your Blackberry ID and password. You will stay logged in for 20 minutes after entering the password. As far as we can see, there is no way to disable this. Blackberry has not answered our calls so this information has come from its website.

   

  Windows phones. You can set up Kid's Corner (but it's not the default setting), which gives the child their own phone area within your handset, with restricted access to your device and certain apps, websites and services. In-app purchases are blocked, as is access to the rest of your phone (messages, contacts, emails, etc). Nevertheless, you always need to enter a password to buy anything.

   

• Use parental controls on your device. Ask your mobile network provider about the financial and parental controls available on your device. On pay-as-you-go plans, for example, you can block certain services. Contact your provider straight away if you get an unexpectedly high bill.

   

• Unlink your credit/debit card from your account. When using iTunes, you can purchase vouchers for your account instead of having a credit/debit card linked to it, so you can't automatically purchase a service.

   

• Ask your mobile provider to cut the bill. If you've been stung by a massive charge, contact your mobile provider and ask it to refund the money as a gesture of goodwill. It may not work, but you won't know until you try. Take this tweet from @missy_bee: "My son spent over £2,000 on apps on the iPad but when I contacted Apple to explain, they were brilliant and refunded the lot."

 

 

EDIT: articles quoted for reader benefit.

Edited March 19, 2013 by Twilicorn

[FoxyCryptid 4,330]

  On 2013-03-19 at 12:58 AM, Twilicorn said:

Quick comment from me, Scootaloo. While Hasbro's actions are perfectly understandable from a business perspective, it's different from an ethical perspective. Just because they can charge exorbitant prices doesn't mean doing so is right, or that the game isn't a piece of shit because of it. The freemium model is, quite frankly, meant to draw people in, get them addicted, and then strip them of their cash.

 

EDIT: Also, a big problem with the game was that kids tended to perform in-app purchases without parental consent. Gameloft likely knew about this, and decided to take advantage of it.

^This, charging all that money to play a flash game when you can get full retail releases with hundreds of hours of game play for $60 full retail is a shitty and abusive move.

 

Granted, I'd play the game if I could(no device to run it(, but I wouldn't spend money on it.  

[~Scootaloo 440]

 

  On 2013-03-19 at 1:31 AM, Shoboni said:

^This, charging all that money to play a flash game when you can get full retail releases with hundreds of hours of game play for $60 full retail is a shitty and abusive move.

 

 

Again, it doesn't matter whether you think its worth the money. The game has all of its legal ducks in a row and despite how much of a ripoff it is it still operates within the boundaries of the law.

[FractalMoon 378]

  On 2013-03-19 at 12:58 AM, Twilicorn said:

Quick comment from me, Scootaloo. While Hasbro's actions are perfectly understandable from a business perspective, it's different from an ethical perspective. Just because they can charge exorbitant prices doesn't mean doing so is right, or that the game isn't a piece of shit because of it. The freemium model is, quite frankly, meant to draw people in, get them addicted, and then strip them of their cash.

 

EDIT: Also, a big problem with the game was that kids tended to perform in-app purchases without parental consent. Gameloft likely knew about this, and decided to take advantage of it.

With regards to hasbro's "ethical" perspective. They did the ethical thing and defended their IP (which they are legally obligated to do). Gameloft paid good money to get a license, Mane6 did not. They could have done their game, but they decided that accepting donations and risking all their work was more worth it.

[Nohbdy 4,108]

  On 2013-03-19 at 1:40 AM, FractaLuna said:

With regards to hasbro's "ethical" perspective. They did the ethical thing and defended their IP (which they are legally obligated to do). Gameloft paid good money to get a license, Mane6 did not. They could have done their game, but they decided that accepting donations and risking all their work was more worth it.

You're missing the point. Mane6 and the deal that Hasbro and Gameloft made are irrelevant regarding how the customers are treated. The legalities are not the issue. Ethics, however, are an issue in their freemium business model. In the case of Gameloft's app, we have clear evidence that they're exploiting the parent-child relationship in order to make money. That's the issue, and that's the ethical perspective I'm talking about.

[~Scootaloo 440]

  On 2013-03-19 at 1:47 AM, Twilicorn said:

You're missing the point. Mane6 and the deal that Hasbro and Gameloft made are irrelevant regarding how the customers are treated. The legalities are not the issue. Ethics, however, are an issue in their freemium business model. In the case of Gameloft's app, we have clear evidence that they're exploiting the parent-child relationship in order to make money. That's the issue, and that's the ethical perspective I'm talking about.

Do you honestly think company's give a flying feather about ethics? hell no they don't!

 

As long as they are "within the law" and it doesn't damage the company's character (and they get a benefit of some sort) too badly then you can bet they'll probably do it.

[Megas 27,857]

The only thing people have an issue with the game and the developer is that they're using a model(microtransactions) that is typically frowned upon by your average gamer(which probably make up a good chunk of bronies). But the thing is that the target audience of the game is the same as the show, the young girls, and one's who'd you probably see playing games like Farmville, which from what I've seen from the game(haven't played it yet), is a lot like it. 

 

Sure with the brony audience around, I'd wish Hasbro would raise their standards for once like they did with Transformers: Fall of Cybertron, and make an MLP game with actual quality(none of this Farmville or minigame collection BS), but I can't really blame Gameloft for making their game geared toward what the target audience would play even though they deserve better

[Nohbdy 4,108]

  On 2013-03-19 at 2:01 AM, ~Scootaloo said:

Do you honestly think company's give a flying feather about ethics? hell no they don't!

 

As long as they are "within the law" and it doesn't damage the company's character (and they get a benefit of some sort) too badly then you can bet they'll probably do it.

That is, again, irrelevant to the discussion. I have no illusions about what a company cares about. They don't have to give a shit, of course, but that doesn't mean they're right, and it most definitely doesn't mean we have to blindly accept it. If something is flawed, then that flaw needs to be pointed out--and that's precisely what we're doing.

[~Scootaloo 440]

  On 2013-03-19 at 2:07 AM, Twilicorn said:

That is, again, irrelevant to the discussion. I have no illusions about what a company cares about. They don't have to give a shit, of course, but that doesn't mean they're right, and it most definitely doesn't mean we have to blindly accept it. If something is flawed, then that flaw needs to be pointed out--and that's precisely what we're doing.

Well on one hand if you really want to bring the fight to anybody then bring it to Gameloft. Is Hasbro able to step in and get Gameloft to change or is Gameloft not obligated to do anything as long as they pay for the license?

[FractalMoon 378]

  On 2013-03-19 at 2:10 AM, ~Scootaloo said:

Well on one hand if you really want to bring the fight to anybody then bring it to Gameloft. Is Hasbro able to step in and get Gameloft to change or is Gameloft not obligated to do anything as long as they pay for the license?

The latter... As long as they have a license, they can do whatever they damn well please. The only real thing Hasbro can do is to prevent renewal of the license.

[~Scootaloo 440]

  On 2013-03-19 at 2:12 AM, FractaLuna said:

The latter... As long as they have a license, they can do whatever they damn well please. The only real thing Hasbro can do is to prevent renewal of the license.

Is there anyway Hasbro could revoke the license early? or is the only other way to have Gameloft violate it the license so it terminates early?

 

If it gets bad enough I'm sure Hasbro will want to jump ship...

[FractalMoon 378]

  On 2013-03-19 at 2:14 AM, ~Scootaloo said:

Is there anyway Hasbro could revoke the license early? or is the only other way to have Gameloft violate it the license so it terminates early?

 

If it gets bad enough I'm sure Hasbro will want to jump ship...

Nah... no way other than a breach of contract (I don't have the exact details on hand... my contract law book is on the other shelf) will kill that license... And Hasbro is making more money than god off of that game... they ave no reason to do anything.

[Nohbdy 4,108]

  On 2013-03-19 at 2:14 AM, ~Scootaloo said:

Is there anyway Hasbro could revoke the license early? or is the only other way to have Gameloft violate it the license so it terminates early?

 

If it gets bad enough I'm sure Hasbro will want to jump ship...

FractaLuna is absolutely correct. Once a contract has been made, the parties involved cannot back out unless the terms of the contract have been violated, or if the contract was invalid to begin with. And yes, Hasbro has absolutely no reason to cancel the contract, especially since they benefit from it.

[~Scootaloo 440]

Well if the Gameloft app is so crappy (due to the business model) than why do so many people play it (and apparently enjoy it)? is it even fun or what is it like? I don't have a smartphone to try it on.

[FractalMoon 378]

  On 2013-03-19 at 2:20 AM, ~Scootaloo said:

Well if the Gameloft app is so crappy (due to the business model) than why do so many people play it (and apparently enjoy it)? is it even fun or what is it like? I don't have a smartphone to try it on.

Eh... It's kinda entertaining... I don't think the business model is that crappy (I would do the same thing if I had the capability)... It's not worth getting a device just to play it, but if you're bored on the subway it gives you something to do.

[~Scootaloo 440]

  On 2013-03-19 at 2:24 AM, FractaLuna said:

Eh... It's kinda entertaining... I don't think the business model is that crappy (I would do the same thing if I had the capability)... It's not worth getting a device just to play it, but if you're bored on the subway it gives you something to do.

Well what do you do in the game? I mean if it is indeed in flash like you said couldn't they put it on Facebook? that would make them even more cash plus PC users could try it too.

[FoxyCryptid 4,330]

  On 2013-03-19 at 1:40 AM, FractaLuna said:

With regards to hasbro's "ethical" perspective. They did the ethical thing and defended their IP (which they are legally obligated to do). Gameloft paid good money to get a license, Mane6 did not. They could have done their game, but they decided that accepting donations and risking all their work was more worth it.

Were actually just discussing Gameloft's busnisse model, not the whole copyright mess, that's for another time, and another thread. 

 

  On 2013-03-19 at 2:20 AM, ~Scootaloo said:

Well if the Gameloft app is so crappy (due to the business model) than why do so many people play it (and apparently enjoy it)? is it even fun or what is it like? I don't have a smartphone to try it on.

Because they don't put the money into it, they

just play as much as the "free-mode" let's them and don't buy gems and such(which is what I would do I could play it)

Edited March 19, 2013 by Shoboni

[Pixel Stick 927]

Catching up on this thread: I saw a few people mention the ethics behind GameLoft's in-app purchases.  There was actually an article on the local radio here a few months back that mentioned iOS and Android apps that were encouraging kids to purchase things in-game, as well as tracking their usage, and what's being done in Congress to stop these practices.

 

On in-app purchases: The problem with the model that GameLoft is using isn't that it's illegal, but that it's too easy for children to make purchases without their parents' consent.  Most children who get their own smartphones have those phones and the accounts paid for by their parents, so they are simply disconnected from the money situation.  Every once in a while, you hear about a kid who actually pays for his or her own account and takes full responsibility for whatever they purchase - these cases are rare, but almost universally, the kids in question are MUCH more careful about their purchases.

 

The problem is that most parents aren't that well-informed on the risks of in-app purchases, nor do they put the necessary controls on their kids' smartphones such that the parent would be required to authorize payments with a separate password.  These kinds of controls are readily available, but many parents don't know about them at all, many more don't know how to use them, and some percentage of those who do use them have kids clever enough to get around them.  Congress is trying to find ways to tighten the laws both for the OS developers (Apple, Google, etc.) and for app developers, to require both of them to do a better job with these kinds of controls to avoid "accidents".

 

As for tracking what kids do in their apps: Some of this is related to purchases, and some is more purely invasion of privacy.  A few app developers have gotten in trouble recently for tracking all sorts of private info about kids using their apps - ranging from communications and data entry to GPS locations and sign-in/out times.  These were done without any notices to the customers saying this kind of info would be collected, or any sort of opt-in or opt-out capability.  I don't know if GameLoft is in this group of developers who got chastised for it recently, but it wouldn't surprise me.

 

Again, Congress is working on tightening the laws here so that when this kind of thing happens, a company can actually be held liable for it.  Right now, there's not much the courts can do other than enforce contracts - it's generally up to the "privacy activists/experts" to raise awareness about the issue.