>According to Google, the app "contains content that doesn't comply with the Gambling policy."
> It should go without saying that I 100% disagree with this decision. Luck be a Landlord does not violate any gambling policy that Google has in their terms of service.
I don't think its saying it violates google's gambling policy, it violates the gambling policy of those countries
FYI for future reference, countries' policies are more commonly referred to as "Laws."
Luck be a Landlord seems to be a harmless Slot Simulator with RPG elements.
It's harmless.
Or, seen from the legislators from these countries; is it harmless ? Or is it the beginning of a gambling addiction ?
From my perspective I'd like this app to be available everywhere, but it seems to be more a political issue than a policy issue directly.
Usually game developers hide such mechanics under bonus stages or lootboxes from what I've seen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banned_video_games_by_...
As long as we're on the subject, the Google Play storefront of this app is very much lacking in any reason why someone should want to plunk down US$5 for it. Maybe an embed of the release video? For that matter the release video itself could benefit from having a voiceover that explains a little of what's going on and makes it sound fun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcbKTeJ6uXU
(Parenthetically I was surprised to just now find out that this game was in my Steam library. Was it in a Humble Bundle at some point?)
They also offer variable rewards with apparent (virtual) value given the same input.
Or do the policymakers care mainly about how the chance is presented?
I am aware that you are probably not directly involved with whatever ratings board is relevant, and probably can't respond authoritatively, but if you could indulge my idle curiosity it would be really cool.
The problem is with Google's inconsistent appeals process, not with the laws of those countries.
Would be good promotion for the Steam game too.
Could be some arbitrary guideline not documented that reviewers have to follow for certain countries. Who knows?
> Luck be a Landlord is a roguelike deckbuilder about using a slot machine to earn rent money and defeat capitalism. This game does not contain any real-world currency gambling or microtransactions.
Did they slip by a reviewer that didn't care? Did they use their "VC" illuminati connections? Are they such a big player the rules don't apply? It doesn't really matter or have anything to do with getting YOUR app released and the reviewer you are talking to will most likely ignore that completely.
Your best bet is to remove or change the mechanic if possible, resubmit, and then add it back in during a future update if you feel strongly about it.
It is possible those other apps have something that allows them to keep it... and by communicating nicely and earnestly with your reviewer you might find a way to skirt the rules, if a way exists. For us, it was frequently tweaking copy or TOS or other minor changes that allowed us to release an app with only superficial changes that the initial review made it seem like we were totally screwed. I do get the instinct to just say FU though.
It is perfectly proper to make this point to HN readers and the general public who know nothing about the situation. It absolutely is relevant that Google do not appear to be applying their policies in a consistent and fair manner and as such are haphazardly fulfilling their consumer promise of operating "safe and secure" app stores.
Spilling conflict into the public sphere is the new way to "turbo" unreasonable disagreements these days. Everyone does it from cable and satellite companies down to individuals getting shit on by a corporate behemoth. Though I find it distasteful, so long as it keeps working, people will keep doing it.
Animals must live with the environment as it is. Humans modify their environment to suit them.
It's ok to be fatalist for yourself. There is no valid reason to try to tell anyone else to be.
Rallying devs and their community of users is worthwhile. My advice was more for how to respond and handle the review process internally with google and Apple based on what has actually worked ime ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Tell your legislators that Google and Apple need to open up to web installs. To make them first class, with no hurdles and no scare tactics.
In order to help facilitate this, open up devices to other stores from the moment of device activation - Google Play should be on iPhone, App Store should be on Android, etc. And build proper first-party browser support for "this website has an app, click to install".
If a customer knows about you and wants you, they should be able to grab you from your website. Or another marketplace.
The App Store system as it stands today is perverse and draconian.
You're getting your talking points crossed. Google's Android permits you to install apps from third party sources, and in fact permits the operation of third party appstores. What you mention is a problem with Apple, not Google. This capability isn't just academic, I install most of my apps from F-Droid and use Play Store for only 3 or 4 apps.
And what would you have legislators do in this case? Scold Google for respecting the laws of other countries by choosing not to distribute apps which violate those laws in those countries (but continuing to sell the app in any country in which it isn't banned)? If this guy wants to sell an app in Saudi Arabia, he should make an app that's legal in Saudi Arabia, or distribute it himself if he wants to flaunt those laws. There is no rational, moral or legal obligation for Google to flaunt Saudi Arabian laws on his behalf.
But that doesn't mean people will actually do so. E.g. if most installs stem from Google promoting the game on the Play Store, using only a website also means losing out on that free publicity. (Or not-free, since Google takes a cut.)
Almost certainly Google has received pressure from these countries on this issue and their business there is more important to google than your single app. Google likely isn't being unreasonable - but the governments of these countries are. Sorry.
I don't know if it'll work in this case, since google's argument ("this contains a slot simulator and some countries don't like that") isn't too egregious, but I can't really fault the dev. When the faceless review process fails, this sort of public appeal has worked before.
Not just Google. It seems like a lot of large corporations effectively outsource their customer service to (the platform formerly known as) Twitter and such. Complaining on social media gets results, even after one has been stonewalled by official channels.
And, even if it fails, you can frequently generate a lot of buzz by complaining loudly on social media. How many people reading this do you think had never heard of this game before just now?
Okay fair enough. What is going to change much?
It didn't work then, and it shouldn't work now.
See also: Project Dragonfly
(Also: I don’t agree with the obviously silly content rules.)
Lobbying government of US, to send them "democracy".
Or hire PMCs (Alphabet has 113B USD in cash).
Or push news and content that is against the local government (but this is half-joke).
So it's possible if you really want.
Problem is that it likely cost way more than he can afford.
Anything else effective is illegal.
So if nobody complained about the other apps, they didn't get banned. It is that easy.
That someone else does something that violates those policies/laws too doesn't mean that you get a free pass, unfortunately.
Does anyone think Google should just ignore national laws as a general policy?
If you mean why isn't Google bringing the banhammer down on every app that fails to meet the criteria isn't that what you want? Allow as much as possible until a government complains?
It looks so boring. I can't tell if the reviewers proclaiming this as an "innovation" in the "roguelike" (?) genre are trolling or not. It's an ugly slot machine game where you click a buttonn to spin. This would have been uninspired trash in 1993. What am I missing?
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1404850/Luck_be_a_Landlor...
I adore this game and I tell everyone I can about it.
The main appeal is: You accumulate symbols into your deck, and the slotmachine arranges a random selection of your symbols up to 20ish (don't recall 100%) onto a 4x5 grid. Afterwards, symbols interact with symbols, combos happen and it just becomes funny to make a couple hundred thousand gold in a single spin. This is very similar to the fun of having an engine go off in dominion.
And then that appeal changes as you realize that there is very little luck necessary in the game. If you try hard, you can get win streaks at highest ascension levels. If you learn the different combos beyond the obvious ones, the weird interactions you can have with items and essences and so on.
It takes some 3-4 runs to appreciate the depth the game actually has. And then the fun begins.
Random procedural map generation.
Turn-based gameplay.
Items which start unidentified, but can still be used (with some risk of being cursed).
Ability to save and exit at any time to resume later, but no ability to save without exiting. Character death deletes the save file and requires starting from the beginning.
Combat-based gameplay, with monsters becoming more difficult as the player progresses through the map levels.
Character can level up by gaining experience, encouraging them to stay at a given level to gain power.
Food must be consumed to avoid dying of starvation. Food is not particularly common, forcing the player to keep progressing to future levels to avoid starvation.
If it's missing one or more of those elements it's a roguelite at most. It's not just random maps, or "permadeath", or item identification, or the tension between starvation and experience, it's the combination of all those elements.
The ORIGINAL ROGUE had random elements, what are you on?
There is a significant level of strategy involved and a low level of luck to win.
I would argue that this game has more agency and skill involved than your average klondike game, actually. Banning shit purely based on the aesthetics is really dumb, particularly when other games get away with having similar aesthetics in their games _including the one that is a direct rip-off of this one!_
but it is for south korea.
From a game theory perspective, perhaps this makes sense, as any bargaining power that a successful app might have to come to a special agreement with Apple/Google is diminished if their app isn't in compliance.
The outrage is unwarranted imho. The app in question looks like a slot machine and that’s the core game mechanic.
I did a double take when I saw this title on the front page of Hacker News. I didn't think it was super well known and I just started playing it again. I hate gambling in games more than anything, and it kills me to see 2K continue to get away with literal slot machines and roulettes, with real money and given an "E" for "Everyone" by a group that is run by a lot of these triple-A board members.
Add something along the lines of "so badass it's illegal in 13 countries" to the description and watch sales skyrocket. People love banned stuff.
Do they know that you don't even actually put money in the slot machine to spin it? The only money you spend in the game is paid to the titular infernal rent seeker.
Anyway, it's a brilliant game.
This is such a strange decision. I know that this game has no microtransactions, actual gambling or any other forms of monetization, outside of paying to purchase this game. Does this mean that any games where chance plays a major role are off-limits? Or is it the slot machine-like appearance?
What I wonder is, are gacha games still available in these regions? They seem to be a lot more resembling of actual gambling, but few places appeared interested in regulating them.
Ding ding ding! There's your explanation for you.
The fact of the matter is that with $6MM you can hire the talent needed to actually make a game like this palatable to conservative regimes. The reskin of this game hides the offensive elements. It also happens to take the soul out of the game. By turning it from a gambling game to a 'roguelike deckbuilder' you manage to transform it from gambling to playing games, avoiding the censors.
LbaL author, being just one person, would be completely unaware of how games are built and marketed around the world.
