The global in-app purchase revenues were $37 billion in 2017 (Dogtiev 2018). And with the rise of popularity of in-app purchases, whether it are “cosmetic wearable items” for your Fortnight character, “harvesting tools” for your Hayday farm or FIFA Ultimate Team packs to get your beloved soccer player on your team, the following question arises:
Are your bought digital items ever yours?
You have just shelled out 20 bucks to buy on what the community agrees on is the best gun of your favorite First Person Shooter game produced by EA. After enjoying it for a little while and calling all your co-players “pitiful little scrubs”, EA decides that the particular gun’s power level is unbalanced with the other guns and changes it attributes to a more normal level.
How could they do this to a gun that you already paid for and own?
To not beat around the bush I’ll tell you up front that you don’t actually own the digital gun. Whether you read the “EA Terms of Service agreement”, the “Blizzard End User License Agreement” or the “Fortnite End User Licence Agreement” they all say the same thing: you don’t own anything but are granted a personal non-transferable limited license.
Ergo, whilst the button you click says “buy”, the ownership will never leave the seller. And not only that, but the moment you are caught attempting to transfer or trade your digital goods your licenses will be suspended.
So at the moment real ownership of such digital goods seems an illusion. At most the digital realm of your choosing will have a “closed economy”: An economy where you can put money in but not extract it out again. So as it stands these digital worlds seem separated from from our own reality, and whether or not the digital economy will ever be fully connected to our real world remains a question for now.
Over are the days of cleaning up your old toys and selling your old Charizard Pokémon card for $55,000.
Sources:
Dogtiev, Artyom, App revenues, 11 May 2018, http://www.businessofapps.com/data/app-revenues/, accessed 08Oct2018
EA, Electronic Arts Gebruikersovereenkomst, 17 May 2018, http://tos.ea.com/legalapp/WEBTERMS/US/nl/PC/, accessed 08Oct2018
Blizzard, Blizzard End User License Agreement, 01 June 2018, https://www.blizzard.com/en-us/legal/fba4d00f-c7e4-4883-b8b9-1b4500a402ea/blizzard-end-user-license-agreement, accessed 08Oct2018.
Epic Games, End User License Agreement, undated, https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/eula, accessed 08Oct2018
Cracknell, Ryan,1999 POKEMON 1ST EDITION CHARIZARD HOLO SELLS FOR OVER $55,000, https://www.beckett.com/news/1999-pokemon-1st-edition-charizard-holo-sells-50000/, accessed 08Oct2018
Never even thought about acquiring in-app purchases in this way. Probably because I try to withhold myself from doing this. It seems logical to have ownership of the product when you purchase it.
But to zoom in your blog, don’t you think it is kind of stealing from the consumer when EA decides to change the weapon you have bought and make it less powerful? What I mean is, someone buys a certain enhancement of his/her game for a specific price. This was the price you deemed to be worth it for this kind of enhancement. When, for example EA, then decides to change the power or impact of this enhancement and lowers it, the price should also decrease. But it doesn’t and the players who’ve already bought won’t get any refund in any form. What is your opinion about this?