GameStar Mechanic is a well-designed game creation toolkit that took five years to create after being passed from grant-to-grant, between non-profits and for-profits. Last month, it was released, so we did a review.
We found it to be easy to sign in and play, but also noted that it uses a velvet rope model (also known in the industry as “freemium”), in combination with the practice of automatically renewing your credit card at the end of your subscription term. The cost is certainly reasonable, at $6/month for the home version, however, you have to make sure you cancel in order to avoid being charged. In addition, after a few days, you can’t get a refund.
Because the only place to see or play your games is on the GameStar website, you see advertising for the premium service with some degree of frequency. In addition, when you play other projects created by other children who are subscribers, you see your work mixed with those who have more sprites, sound effects and background themes, like those used in Mario Worlds and the underwater theme found in The Floating Farm. As we learned in a study we did with Consumer Reports webwatch, the process of showing children things they can’t have, is an effective sales mechanism. It can also turn a child into a begging machine.
GameStar Mechanic is headed toward your local public school, helped along by good reviews like ours and game design contests endorsed by the US Department of Education, with judges, like me.
So here’s the question. Is it appropriate for “freemium” products to be used in school settings? If so, to what extent? From a cynical view, does the practice risk turning a cash-strapped public school teacher into an E-Line Media sales rep, starting students on a journey that ends at a shopping cart? Or is this simply part of a 21st Century education?
I’m not claiming to know the answer, but I do think that this is an issue that needs to be examined, as the curriculum changes from paper to pixels.
THE PUBLISHER’S PERSPECTIVE
Alan Gershenfeld, E-Line’s President, told me that he was open to suggestions on how to ethically charge for his service, and that this was an issue that they have given a great deal of thought. I found him to be open to the discussion, an indication that he understands that this is an evolving issue. He wanted me to keep in mind:
• GameStar Mechanic would not exist without a revenue stream.
• Commercial publishers have no interest in keeping a service going unless it can make money.
• The free version of GameStar Mechanic is fully functional. No core features have been removed from the free version.
• Running such a service is expensive. Even though the development was underwritten by grants, creating new quests and supervising a community of young programmers takes staff, and that takes money.
A NOBLE CAUSE; A SHOPPING CART
GameStar Mechanic was originally part of a grant given to James Gee and Eric Zimmerman by the MacArthur Foundation. Some of the original programming work was done by the now defunct GameLab, a studio run by Eric (see LEGO Junkbot for one of GameLab’s 2003 projects). GameStar’s stated mission is to “get kids hooked” on “STEM” (science, technology, engineering and math), a cause that has been mentioned recently by President Obama.
In one of the E-Line press releases, CES Michael Angst stated “The enthusiasm with which students embrace these complex concepts, when presented in the context of videogame creation, is truly remarkable.” “By tapping into the natural passions of today’s youth for playing and making games we believe we can help build a great motivation to embrace critical 21st Century and STEM skills.”
Here’s one of the screens designed to sell premium memberships. Looks fun, right? Getting your mom, dad or teacher to pay up is the key toward getting your designs in front of “each major school of design.” Plus, they can get their money back, after they “win great prizes!” (Trust me, kids believe this stuff!).
THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT
Now, take a closer look at the GameStar Mechanic Subscriber Agreement, as of October 2, 2010 (keep in mind that things can change).
“Users may also elect to purchase a Premium Membership…. Premium Members have access to premium quests, the opportunity to earn special sprites that extend their game making capabilities, the ability to view statistics and other information on how other players play the games they publish, and the opportunity to participate in premium design challenges.”
In other words, you get more features, content, and can make more interesting programs if you’re a paid subscriber.
If you’re not a subscriber your work will blend into the pack. Premium Memberships cost $6 for one month, $30 for six months and $50 for one year.
THE BILLING
“By signing up for a Premium Subscription, you authorize us to automatically renew the subscription for the same increment on the date of its expiration. On that date, we will charge your method of payment on file at the then-current rate for that increment of subscription. We WILL NEVER automatically renew your subscription at a price that is higher than the price at which you initially purchased that increment of subscription. Regardless of the length of subscription you select, we will send you an email reminder 2 weeks before the conclusion of each year of active premium membership. Within the first 7 days following the initial purchase of a monthly subscription or the first 30 days following the initial purchase of a six-month or annual subscription, you are entitled to, upon request, a full, no-questions-asked refund of your premium subscription purchase. To request such a refund, please email us at support@gamestarmechanic.com.”
This seems like it is a reasonable refund policy. But what if you call up three years down the road, and it is clear your son or daughter has never logged in? Can you get your $216 (or more back)? Not according to this agreement. This agreement is written so that the default condition favors the seller rather than the buyer.
NEEDED: A CODE OF ETHICS FOR FREEMIUM (VELVET ROPE) PRODUCTS IN EDUCATION SETTINGS.
Can quality, commercial interactive content like GameStar Mechanic be sold and used in public schools? Absolutely. However, freemium (velvet rope) services that automatically renew may risk crossing an ethical line. Here’s a rough draft of some suggested conditions that should be met in order to use such services in a school setting. Note that these ideas apply to all freemium services, not just GameStar Mechanic.
1. Keep sales agendas out of the curriculum. In GameStar’s case, a classroom version might be available, paid for in a single, one-time transaction for an entire classroom or school that consists of a fixed set of tools that has no offers for becoming a subscriber.
2. Don’t tease children, by showing them things they don’t have. When posting projects with this version, children should only be able to see other work completed using the same tools.
NOTE: GameStar Mechanic will have an option for teachers, so they can purchase a private realm, so students can only interact with one another and not the general public. So this would solve this problem.
3. Be fair to all publishers. Contests that are supported with public money (e.g., government sponsored) must not endorse any particular programming language or service over another, unless all children who enter the contest are given equal access to the same tools.
4. Define the terms. The exact differences between “free” and “premium” should be exactly defined in a side-by-side comparison chart that is in front of the shopping cart, written in objective (non-sales) language, so that it is possible for the buyer to know what he or she will get, in advance of the transaction.
5. Don’t make people buy things they don’t use. Services that involve children and schools should avoid the practice of automatic subscription renewals. The default condition should be that you will not be charged unless you give your consent. For example, when you log in as expired subscriber, you should get a message that says, “Sorry, your subscription has lapsed. Would you like to purchase more time?” That way the choice is yours.
6. Don’t use a child’s work as advertising. A child’s classroom work could be used as bait to get other children, teachers and proud parents in front of a shopping cart. Nobody should be able to “own” or indirectly profit from a child’s in-class intellectual creativity, by posting it on a commercial website along with offers for premium services.
7. If you make it, you should be able to keep it. If a child invests his or her classroom time to make a program, he or she should be able to download and keep his or her work on a local device that is free from advertisements promoting premium content.
Leave a Reply
Your comment will appear after moderation.