Free-to-play children's apps: it's time for a proper debate

Ninja vs Zombies

fury why developers should remind ? 69.99 IAP applications in children is unacceptable

news that Apple has given to the parents of a child who had climbed a letter of 1700 pounds vs Zombies iPad game Ninja game shall be considered as a final reminder for application developers to bring their children houses for free play.

One caveat: Ninja vs Zombies is not marketed as an app for children, and in fact his age is 9 + App Store, then you could say that five years he ran this particular draft law should not have played in the first place.

However, history should provoke a long-awaited review of how in-app purchases (IAP) are used in applications that are for children, taking into account existing examples of games that make possible the delay.

examples? In December 2012, Gameloft released a iOS and Android game called Pirates Playmobil, depending on the brand of preschool toys. The game included a freemium application store selling virtual gems that could be used to speed up the game, from ? 1.49 for 200 gems, and rising to ? 69.99 for 15,000. Accordance children.

examples? National Geographic Dino Land in iOS launched in February 2013: a set of colorful dinosaur specifically for children, the sale of virtual bones. ? 1.49 you need 300, but he spent the money he received 69.99 GBP 22,500. Accordance children.

examples? In June 2012, Capcom Shrek Fairytale Kingdom through a licensing agreement with DreamWorks formal. This includes up to ? 69.99 IAP at a time and when I played at launch, the first indicator to buy magic stars came at the end of this tutorial. Accordance children.

All this is happening amidst a trickle flow of news in the media about children who arrive with their parents enormous credit card bills through IPA - often because they buy within 15 minutes of his father to enter a password iTunes (for example, to download an application - which is why post-placement tutorial Shrek Fairytale Kingdom IAP feared at first).

comes as Apple has settled a lawsuit in the United States in-app purchases in applications of the child and has agreed to reimburse the parents whose children spent on IAP without their knowledge in a case that could cost the company as much as ? 66m.

Free-to-play is not only about the IAP, however. It is also in-app advertising. Evidenced by the recent release of Outfit7 Talking Friends Drawings application with an advertisement for a "Win an iPad" contest participants who are enrolled in a 4 pounds per week service subscription content mobile. Accordance children.

This happened a few months after the cash loans ? 400 ads were seen under Outfit7 Talking Ginger. In both cases, the company said that the appearance of advertisements errors and removed.

is time for some straight talk from industry on how IAP applications and advertising applications are used in children. If things continue as they are, it will be resolved, but it would be nice to think that the industry is responsible enough to take a position before that happens.

Here's an idea: Apple needs to do more. The company has taken steps in the past - it is easy for parents to change their settings for iOS get rid of this window of 15 minutes, if you know how. The problem is that many parents still do.

Google, Microsoft and BlackBerry should also take into account their default values ??and parenting. There is also a discussion about whether these companies were expected to limit the maximum size of in-app purchases various applications in children's scanning app-ads, and developers say clearly explain in their App Store lists how they use IAP .

Here's another idea: parents must also accept the responsibility to know what their kids download and play on their iOS devices to block its adjustments IPA, and in many cases, to keep your password themselves.

And now developers. If you make an application or a game for children, including IAP as high as 69.99 pounds at a time, it is necessary to have a long hard look at their ethics.

• Because understand this: there are many parents who have not closed their more IAP settings below that there are parents who are willing to blow up 70 pounds in virtual items for their Children. Each new media report of a monster bills iTunes gives you an excuse much less plead ignorance of this fact.
• freemium business models, especially in the games are based on the removal of the ceiling on the number of people who can pay, if they wish. In adults, this is fair enough. Make your choice, pay your money (or not), and if a game feels too aggressive with his expectation of payment, play something else.
• With children, it's different. A common vision among game developers - personified by this column by the consultant Will Luton, who argues convincingly - that the IEP is not unlike physical toys when children are involved. Why is okay to sell Playmobil Treasure Island Adventure ? 84.99 at Toys R Us is, but not IPA ? 69.99 in app stores?

this: my five years will be given little if he walks in Toys R Us entering my credit card. Two: the virtual objects are consumable items - they last. They are like candy, not as physical toys. Many children, when presented with 70 pounds worth of gems, stars or bones coming through them as quickly as possible, then go back for more.

this is a case of parental responsibility, of course - to say "no" firmly - but trust that parents have applications and games that try to exploit this dynamic disturb

This is a key word in this debate: trust. If parents do not trust or application developer, you will immediately remove. In fact, according to my unscientific survey entirely other parents are increasingly choosing not to install applications with IAP in the first place.
Find best price for : --Temple----Angry----toys----BlackBerry----Microsoft----Ginger----Talking----Capcom----Land----Dino----Geographic----National----freemium----Playmobil----Android----Gameloft----Apple--