游戏邦在:
杂志专栏:
gamerboom.com订阅到鲜果订阅到抓虾google reader订阅到有道订阅到QQ邮箱订阅到帮看

解读OFT的IAP指导原则对游戏开发者的意义

发布时间:2013-09-30 15:05:51 Tags:,,,

作者:Ethan Levy

英国公平贸易局(Office of Fair Trade,简称OFT)上周四发布的儿童在线游戏报告指出了针对儿童市场、包含IAP内容的游戏需注意的8项原则,以便保护消费者权益,同时也避免开发者因不当操作而坐上法院被告席。

我并非律师,本文内容也不能视为针对游戏开发者的法律建议,只是从我个人角度来解读这8项原则对开发者的益处。

如果你是在英国运营一款含有IAP内容的游戏,我建议你去了解一下这些原则,并据此更新你的游戏。在我看来,这里对于孩子的定义(游戏邦注:OFT将孩子定义为未满16岁的人)有点广泛,即使是OFT报告也试图将目标锁定那些“含有可能吸引孩子的角色”,“卡通风格的画面”以及“鲜明色彩”,类似于《蓝精灵村庄》的游戏。我认为将孩子年龄定义到16岁,几乎所有(用ESRB标准)在Mature以下级别的游戏都可划入这个目标范畴。

我认为实施这8项原则对游戏开发者的好处在于,它们不会影响到游戏设计或盈利性,而是减少或消除一些可能让用户混淆的用户界面设置,以免我们的行业染上恶名。

作为一名盈利设计顾问,我也花了不少精力研究用户界面设计。OFT所提出的设计原则很大部分与优化用户界面,让玩家清楚自己将要掏钱给游戏这一事实有关。我将在此着重探讨原则4-7,其内容“几乎适用于所有游戏运营者”,并讲述它们将如何影响游戏UI调整。在此我将对《蓝精灵村庄》为例。

原则4 & 5

原则4在我看来,是一个应该更清楚定义的灰色地带。“不用在用户玩游戏时弹出要求其购买额外内容或功能的消息。任何含有商业意图的信息都应该与玩法明确区别出来。”我不知道开发者该如何在应用与玩游戏之间划清这个“明确”界线——或者说,高手玩家可能知道这个界线在哪,但妈妈级用户却并不一定能够了解其中定义。OFT报告称购买弹出消息应该“以不同于玩法,易于区分的广告形式出现”。

不过这个报告提供了更多详情以说明这个问题。其中之一就是要用清楚的语言区分使用游戏内部资源和真钱购买道具这两者的不同。例如,下图就是使用游戏内部资源购买道具的合适表述:

use smurfberries(from gamasutra)

use smurfberries(from gamasutra)

但这个屏幕及所有传递类似情况的信息都应该使用“购买”一词,并让玩家清楚你将引向真钱购买机制。

get more smurfberrys(from gamasutra)

get more smurfberrys(from gamasutra)

根据我对OFT原则的解读,这个对话框内容应该修改为“是否想购买更多Sumrfberries?你得用真钱才能买到Sumrfberries。”

原则4进一步指出“如果他们想在游戏内部资源不足的情况下采取一些操作,游戏应该公平呈现免费和付费选项。”这里的公平呈现可能就要求开发者进行广泛的UI调整(在我看来,就是实施良好的UI设计)。它在原则5中也提到“付费和非付费选项都要清楚而公平地呈现给用户。”

如果我点击了一个农场操作按钮,可能就会看到以下画面:

use or wait(from gamasutra)

use or wait(from gamasutra)

玩家在此可以采取3步操作。使用1个Smurfberry,访问商店并等待。如果玩家选择等待,他就必须点击右上角UI元素中的返回箭头。而这个选项的图标从大小、位置和信息量来看,都并不是很明显。

这种现象在我们整个行业中甚为普遍,也是玩家的一大烦恼。我认为移除这种UI设置(模糊不清的非购买选项,玩家要选择等待,就只能关闭对话框),终会让行业受益。设置清晰而明确的“我还需等待X秒”按钮可以优化这一屏幕,若普及到整个应用,可令游戏更具可玩性。

原则 6 & 7

在我看来,原则6 & 7主张的是使用更优良的文案。更清楚,更透明,更少剥削性。我认为《蓝精灵村庄》中难以找到符合原则6的做法——“游戏应为用户提供有关付费内容或付费功能的信息。这些信息的表达方式应该客观、清楚、准确而不具有剥削性。”

这似乎是在指向《DragonVale》式的养成游戏,报告中所举例子表明游戏应该使用“你的海鸥饿了!给它喂点沙丁鱼或冰淇淋让它更强壮吧!”的表述,而非“你的海鸥宝宝饿得嗷嗷待哺饿了!给它喂点沙丁鱼或冰淇淋吧,不然它会不高兴的。”也就是说,如果某项资源与一项购买交易绑定(你恰好用完了该资源)时,你就一定要避免使用利用孩子对卡通角色情感粘性的情绪化表述。因为这是一种赤裸裸的剥削表现。

原则7也同样要求游戏使用更清晰的文案。针对游戏内部货币“当用户花光游戏内部货币时,不得使用提示或煽动性信息要求他们购买更多货币。但游戏可以提供玩家能够购买哪些东西,以及付费机制如何运行的信息。”这与恳求玩家购买更多货币存在区别。

总结

我赞同OFT报告中对提高游戏质量的建议。作为游戏设计师,我认为他们无法限制或削弱我使用IAP商业模式制作出优秀游戏的能力。我认为遵从该报告所列出的原则就会限制我作为设计师的创造力,或者游戏业务的潜在收益。

OFT只是针对那些令人不快,具有潜在剥削性和非法性的的做法制定了明确的指导原则。遵从这些原则就需要许多游戏颠覆原来的文案和UI设计,要求游戏工作室在涉及游戏内部购买元素时采用更严格的文案和UI设计标准。相信随着时间发展,这一结果终将为那些社交游戏和移动设备上的游戏洗清其污名。(本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译,拒绝任何不保留版权的转载,如需转载请联系:游戏邦

Why the OFT’s 8 principles for in-game purchases are great for game developers

by Ethan Levy

The following blog post, unless otherwise noted, was written by a member of Gamasutra’s community.

The thoughts and opinions expressed are those of the writer and not Gamasutra or its parent company.

On Thursday, the UK’s Office of Fair Trade released its Children’s Online Games report and consultation. The report outlines 8 principles for games targeted at children that contain in-game purchases. The “report outlines the main issues we identified through our investigation and our proposed remedy: to produce a set of industry-wide Principles to make clear the OFT’s views on businesses’ obligations under consumer protection law and what they should do to avoid being the subject of targeted enforcement action.”

No doubt inspired by stories like the 8 year old girl who spent $1,400 inside of Smurfs for iPad, the report is one I have heard concerns about when talking to clients over the past few months. I am no lawyer, and this post in no way should be taken as legal advice, but my personal interpretation is that these 8 principles are largely great for game developers.

If you operate a game in the UK that offers in-game purchases, I suggest you get acquainted with the principles and start updating your game accordingly. From my perspective, the definition of child (“the OFT considers that a child is likely to be considered a person under the age of 16”) is a bit broad and even though the report tries to target games more on The Smurfs’ Village end of the spectrum with guidelines like “inclusion of characters popular with or likely to appeal to children,” “cartoon-like graphics,” and “bright colours” I believe that by defining children at 16, more or less all games (regardless of platform) rated less than Mature (by ESRB standards) could fall under these provisions.

I believe that enforcing these 8 principles will be great for game developers. There is no reason to be concerned about these principles changing your game’s design or impacting your ability to make a profit. The overall effect of the principles will be to reduce or eliminate some of the more intentionally confusing user interface practices that tend to give this sector of our industry a bad name.

As a monetization design consultant, I spend the a lot of effort on user interface design. The principles laid out by the OFT largely demand implementing better user interfaces that make it clearer when the player is going to spend money. For the rest of the article I will focus on principles 4-7 where compliance is “likely to fall almost entirely to games operators” and how they would affect UI changes in a sample game. For the purposes of the article, I thought it apropos to use The Smurfs’ Village.

Principles 4 & 5

Principle 4 is where, as a layman, I see the most grey area that should be more clearly defined. “Consumers are not prompted while playing the game to pay for additional content or features. Any messages with a commercial intent are clearly identifiable and distinguishable from gameplay.” I do not know how a clear line is drawn between being in the app and playing the game – or, I know how I as an expert would draw the line but do not expect that my mother would be able to easily understand my definition by looking at a game. The report says that for purchase prompts “information appears in the form of an advertisement that is distinguishable and separate from gameplay.”

But the report gives more details that help clarify the issue. One is that language should clearly differentiate between using in-game resources and buying items with real money. For example, this screen is a proper example of using an in-game resource:

But this screen and all communicating a similar message should clearly use the word buy and generally make it clear you are headed towards a real-money purchase.

A conservative interpretation of the principles would have the string revised to “Would you like to buy more Smurfberries? Smurfberries must be purchased with real money.”

Principle 4 further states that “if they try to do something for which they do not have enough in-game currency, both free to play and paid for options are presented with equal prominence.” This equal prominence requirement is the one likely to require the most widespread UI changes (and, in my opinion, simply enforce good UI design practices). It is mentioned in Principle 4 for prompted purchases as well as in Principle 5: “both paid-for and non-paid-for options are presented clearly and given equal prominence to consumers.”

If I look at this screen, shown after I have clicked a farming action in process:

I interpret 3 actions the player can take. Use 1 Smurfberry, visit the shop and wait. If the player chooses to wait, he must click the small return arrow in the top left corner of the UI element. Judging by size, positioning and messaging the option to wait is clearly not given equal prominence.

This practice is widespread throughout our industry, and frankly very annoying as a player. I think that we will only benefit from removing this UI practice from our vocabulary, where the option to decline a purchase is obscured by only allowing it through the closing of the dialog box. A clear and equally prominent “I’ll wait X seconds” button where the shop button currently sits will only make this a better screen and, when proliferated throughout the app, a more playable game.

Principles 6 & 7

From my reading, Principles 6 & 7 deal primarily with using better copy. Clearer, more transparent, less exploitative. I could not easily find an example in The Smurfs’ Village that exemplifies crossing principle 6 which requires “A game provides information to consumers about premium content or features available for payment. That information is given in an objective, clear, accurate and non-exploitative way.”

This seems targeted at DragonVale style breeding games that include caring for creatures. The example the report gives is to say “Your seagull is hungry! Feed him sardines or ice cream to make him strong” instead of “Your seagull is hungry! Feed him ice cream or he will be unhappy.” The intent here is that when using a resource is tied to a purchase (when you run out of that resource) you must avoid using emotional appeals that prey on a child’s attachment to the cartoon character. This style of copy is clearly exploitive.

Principle 7 is again about clearer copywriting. In regards to in-game currency “when the consumer runs out of that in-game currency, there is no prompt or in-game encouragement or incitement to buy more. The game may nevertheless give information about what may be bought and how the payment mechanism operates.” The line here is that there is a clear difference between imploring the player to buy more currency “You have run out of cherries. BUY MORE NOW from the shop” and informing him of his ability to buy more currency.

Polishing off the tarnish

I applaud the OFT on the quality of the suggestions in their report. As a game designer, I feel that they have in no way restricted or diminished my ability to make an excellent game using the in-game purchase business model. There is no feature I have recommended in the past 12 months that I will not be recommending in the coming 12 as a result of this report. I see no way that following these principles restricts my creativity as a designer or earnings potential as a business.

What the OFT has done is set clear guidelines for those practices that are not only distasteful, but potentially exploitive and illegal. Following these principles will require many games to overhaul their copy and UI, and require game studios to enforce stricter requirements around the copy and UI used in relation to in-game purchases. Over time, the result will be to polish off some of the tarnish that has built up during the rise of free-to-play on social networks and mobile devices.

Free-to-play games will be better thanks to these principles.(source:gamasutra


上一篇:

下一篇: