I think the vast majority of customers know what they're getting when they start playing a free game with incredibly high production values. Additionally, to the economics point, consumers are making choices about whether they think a purchase is worth it every single time they are faced with an IAP.
There are also varying degrees of IAP:
- Should a "free" game that offers ads be considered free? You're paying for it by being forced to watch interstitial ads. (ex: Flappy Bird)
- Should a "free" game that has IAPs for purely cosmetic items that have no impact on the game be considered free (ex: TF2 model)?
- Should a "free" game that has IAPs that are optional that help you win be considered free (ex: Candy Crush)?
- Should a "free" game that has IAPs that have a pure pay gate 20 minutes into the game be considered free?
Personally I think there are a ton of varying degrees here, and putting a "if you have IAP in the game, PERIOD" it's not considered free, makes a black-and-white statement about something that has many shades of gray.
Your assumption is wrong- games companies (clarifying- the exploitative ones) will generally take advantage of the fact that the majority of customers actually DONT know what they're getting. A free game is expected to be free. Ridiculous concept, I know.
A free game with ads should be considered free. That's simply how free services are categorized on the internet (facebook, twitter, reddit, etc).
Purely cosmetic items not affecting a game is a hard one to classify. Could go either way. A free game with optional IAP's is also hard to classify.
A game with a pay GATE is definitely not free.
So the hard to classify cases, if they are more pronounced to show that they are in fact, not completely free games, but free game with in app purchases available, the description or reviews can then go on to describe how that works. At the moment, the "offers in app purchases" in small subtext and a huge FREE DOWNLOAD button is insufficient and cause for much of the (I would argue, intentionally designed) confusion.
IAP created a breed of game developers that preys on spur of moment purchases on the part of the consumer. Yes, this exists in other businesses, but that doesn't make it acceptable or non-manipulative of consumers. A Lite version of a game, clearly specified, followed with a Full version paid version, is currently my preferred method of selling a game. No confusion is created on the part of the consumer, and they know what they're getting in either case.
There are also varying degrees of IAP: - Should a "free" game that offers ads be considered free? You're paying for it by being forced to watch interstitial ads. (ex: Flappy Bird) - Should a "free" game that has IAPs for purely cosmetic items that have no impact on the game be considered free (ex: TF2 model)? - Should a "free" game that has IAPs that are optional that help you win be considered free (ex: Candy Crush)? - Should a "free" game that has IAPs that have a pure pay gate 20 minutes into the game be considered free?
Personally I think there are a ton of varying degrees here, and putting a "if you have IAP in the game, PERIOD" it's not considered free, makes a black-and-white statement about something that has many shades of gray.