Short article here from the Charlotte Observer looking at the phenomena of virtual worlds for children - and their methods of getting children (or their parents) to part with money (via BJ Berquist at TappedIn).
I think it is very easy to criticize companies from trying to get children to part with money - and there are many examples of unethical marketing practices that do target children. On the other hand, games are a form of entertainment - and it is not unreasonable for companies to try to make money for providing entertainment. Acceptable for DVD or music sales, certainly.
I think I remain more concerned about, and interested in, the content of games, and the behaviors and values that they can promote and what is being learned by the children playing the games. But the marketing value of virtual worlds has not escaped companies with products to sell to children - and the online world remains unaffected by many of the legislative controls on marketing and advertising. Also of interest are the ways in which games use the allure of premium content to turn trial users/free players into subscribers - can these methods cross some invisible line into exploitation?
I want to pick one example from the article… from BarbieGirls which has till now been free to play. A two-tier system which allows free play as before - but provides special content to subscribers - is now on the way:
But a collection of some games and fashion items will be off limits unless they become a V.I.P. player, which requires cash. VIPs are distinguished from the other Barbies by their sparkling tiaras.
So in a virtual world where looking fabulous is a major part of the experience, only those who pay can possibly looks truly fabulous. And this in a virtual world which itself is part marketing exercise for a range of plastic toys.