#European Consumer Protection Cooperation Network’s Key Principles on In-game Virtual Currencies

64 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

tame stirrup
#

https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/8af13e88-6540-436c-b137-9853e7fe866a_en?filename=Key principles on in-game virtual currencies.pdf

I'm not familiar enough with European politics to know the impact of this, but here is a link to a document posted by the EU a few days ago.
TLDR:

  1. Anything that can be acquired in game using a virtual currency that has a real world monetary value needs to indicate this real world value on the content.
  2. Games should avoid offering in-game virtual currencies only in bundles mismatching the value of purchasable in-game digital content and services as well as denying consumers the possibility to choose the specific amount of in-game virtual currency
    to be purchased.
Screenshot_2025-03-24_221819.png
#

European Consumer Protection Cooperation Network’s Key Principles on In-game Virtual Currencies

static mango
#

they have legal experts, id trust them to know what theyre doing

#

side note - its a good read

#

would recommend reading it if this sorts of stuff interests you

tame stirrup
static mango
#

fair enough 👍

orchid geyser
#

These are good points, but we should not forget that 1939 is an Iceland company, which is a none EU country. This alone make the actual enforcement of EU regulations difficult. Considering that the documents you are referring to is not a law or administrative order (though it might be based on some), but more like a list of suggestions, which makes its enforcement even more complicated.

#

Technically, EU do have power to extend its regulation to companies serving EU customers while registering in none EU countries, like the case of Meta and Google. But it requires a series of complicated legal procedure that even if there are any problems 1939 would have enough time to react.

#

Frankly, the pricing problem of 1939, if there are any, is so minor in the scale compare to those big cases that its legal risk is very small. Unless some EU customers claimed to be scammed by the misleading pricing of 1939 and actually bring that to court, I strongly doubt if 1939 would be troubled by its pricing policy.

#

I'm not saying that an early access bundle claims to save 58% or a monthly pass claims to give you 600% extra worth is all right. But the actual legal risk of such advertisements is so small compare to the possible profit it might make. All 1939 need is to hire a good lawyer and using lengthy procedures and game of numbers to deal with possible troublemakers. And trust me, 1939 must have more than one good lawyers.

tame stirrup
orchid geyser
#

yes, as I said, presently the problems are only minor ones, and no action will be taken against it in the near future. We can only hope that someday the trend will change and 1939 will follow it

#

Still, it's a good thing to tell the community that there's a more customer friendly pricing principle somewhere in the world.

fleet rapids
#

As pointed out earlier, these r suggestions, not laws meaning that nothing has to change to comply.
But there r some interesting parts to it still. Like, noting that transactions with these in game currencies that can be bought with money is regulated by customer protection laws is impactful. What it means (amongst other things) is that EU residents should be able to refund their purchases (within two weeks, I think, maybe a bit longer), just bc they changed their mind. It doesn't have to be faulty. (Not complying with that can lead to serious legal trouble now that it's been cleared up it'll be treated as it should.)
So theoretically, if another "u get it one week earlier pre-buy" shows up, I could buy it and then get it refunded after the pre-buy only week is over, and then just craft em instead when they r craftable. (I'm an EU citizen.)

static mango
#

for example you cant buy csgo cases, open them, and then request a refund

#

its possible the pre-purchase might change the nature of requesting a refund

fleet rapids
#

Lootboxes r in fact the trickiest thing to tackle in that regard. And they r not regulated properly.

#

But if the contents r fixed and I'm within the time frame, I doubt there'll be a problem.

#

But don't take this as legal advice. I could be off.

static mango
#

i tihnk if 1939 refused the refund you might have a hard time following up any complaints about it

fleet rapids
#

Yrs of legal procedures to see how it shakes for a couple of dollars, yes.

static mango
#

its also just the fact that the customer protection laws are clearly meant to protect customers and not to abuse for personal gain, so i could see such a case being thrown out easily

#

but im not a legal expert

fleet rapids
#

But that's true for any small purchase.

static mango
#

iirc EU laws are as implied and not just as written

#

but i could be wrong

fleet rapids
static mango
#

the prebuy purchase isnt sketchy imo

#

and in a lot of places in the world it does matter what a law is meant for

#

in some places the intention behind a law effects the decision made in court

#

in some places it doesnt

#

like i said im not sure which eu laws are

#

but it 100% can matter a lot

orchid geyser
#

"For digital content to be exempted from the right of withdrawal, the consumer must give their express consent to begin using the content or service immediately (before the 14-day period expires) and acknowledge that their right of withdrawal will be lost."

fleet rapids
#

Alright, I was wrong than. It happens.

static mango
#

all gucci

#

ill add it to the list and bring it up in the future

orchid geyser
#

The only issue might be that 1939 didn't arrange the procedure properly that they failed to acknowledge the customer of this condition. However, even with such mistakes (which is highly unlikely), it would be very trickey to get a refund in this case

static mango
#

so id expect them to be following the correct steps

orchid geyser
#

yep, that's why it's highly unlikely to happen

static mango
#

i am how ever suing 1939 because my opponent always has war machine in their opener

orchid geyser
#

Haha, I think that's a bit too much...

#

maybe you just exaggerated the negative experience too much

static mango
#

its how ill make my millions

orchid geyser
#

Well, if you do have the evidence that 1939 manipulated the rate of drawing specific cards for a specific deck in order to influence the win rate, then you may file a law suit for player manipulation and misinformation (because the chance of drawing every card should be equal). However, you can't really get that evidence and I don't see why 1939 would do so much as to manipulate every specific deck.

#

The best 1939 can do is perhaps implementing ELO system to balance the winrates, which is perfectly legal

static mango
orchid geyser
#

Haha now I get it

tame stirrup
# fleet rapids As pointed out earlier, these r suggestions, not laws meaning that nothing *has*...

From what I understand of European law, the jurisdiction of this would still fall on individual countries. The cpcn exists to encourage coordination within the union. I'm not familiar enough with European law to know what the requirements are for a case to end up in the European courts instead of national ones.

In regards to international impact, any sort of online regulation won't be as impactful as regulating physical products. Companies with enough resources can just tailor their service to individual markets. However, effective policy will quickly be noticed in like-minded countries and will be easy to replicate.

tame stirrup
tribal pine
#

Isn't this new rule only for kids regarding virtual currency? It might change later but I think rn it only concerns children

tame stirrup
tribal pine
#

ok then

obsidian geyser
#

I'm sorry but someone's gotta say it

#

🤓

static mango