So I am curious to see what everyone thinks. Do you prefer to purchase a game upfront and have it be completely unlocked and playable? Or would you rather have a free game with some content locked that you have to purchase? I have always been the pay upfront kind of gamer. There is more risk if you don't like the game, but if you do, you can play it forever.
For players - an up-front fee, either to purchase the app, or to unlock the full version from within the game itself. For developers - see the Farmville model.
What he said. Most definitely a one time purchase. Also I don't feel too much at risk if a video is made that shows the actual play of the game.
Yeah I heard that developers make a LOT of money with In-App purchases, but most times they are over priced. At least they seem a little over priced to me. Paying once and for all is what I prefer. What about demo versions or "pay to unlock the full version?" Those don't seem so bad because they you can at least test the game a little first to see if you like it.
Normally I like 1-time purchase since I don't have to bother with unlocking my old purchases if I reinstall or something. That would be troublesome if I am offline. But as I am a avid fan of Big Fish, and they tend to do demos with full game unlocks, that is still ok but like I said earlier, that offline issue still stand. Freemium games are the worst. Games like Tiny Tower, Pocket Planes are still alright but those that suck tons of cash from you... The worst kind are freemium packaged as not so you pay a price to get it...then you pay more to continue playing...
One time purchase. I usually avoid games with too many in-app purchases. When I buy a game, I want the whole thing sitting in my iTunes folder.
I think In-App Purchases only should be for DLC (like Valkyrie in Galaxy On Fire 2) and for gold, but gold viewed like luxury or something, not strictly needed for the game in self, like Zenonia and others. But in my opinion, just one time purchase; In App would be only additional things, that would not interfere in the game.
One time purchase. The only form of in-app purchase that i will accept is to buy a new campaign,like in GOF II or Highborn.
A one time purchase. I hate in-app purchases. The prices of some of them are outrageous. 'Bucket load of cash - £75' :O
I cant believe people think that IAP's would be preferred ! Seems everyone here thinks that a one off purchase is the best. Sadly those days seem to be dwindling with the amount of games which are free but with tons of IAP's. Again in a 'few' cases IAP's arent that bad, but IAP's can also be ridiculous, eg some recent games where you buy gems so you dont have to wait a few hours to be able to continue your game, ridiculous
The sad part is that it seems our TA community isn't representative of all the App Store consumers. Look at the top grossing chart - so many of those titles are freemiums :/ It just seems to me that the majority of people aren't willing to pay an entrance fee of a few bucks just to play a quality game.
Yea, sometimes the top 200 lists on itunes baffle me. Guess some people like freenium with inapps. I personally don't like inapps, and welcome one fixed price. At least that way you know what you purchased. Freenium games usually start off fun, but after about one hour the difficulty ramps up, and the game is from that point too hard without inapps. That sucks big time.
Sadly, there are "whales" out there, maybe only 1 or 2 who spends $2000 easily on freemium games.. The devs is targeting those, not us the 90s gamer or premium gamer or whatever.. Now, even Nintendo is acknolwleding freemium games.. The future of gaming is dark if the devs only motivation is money.. I don't say devs don't need money, but the main motivation of making games should not be money.. I think they should be motivated by the thoughts of introducing their world of dreams to us gamers..
For me a one time purchase is the way it "should" be. You buy the game and you know what you get and there is no additional IAP in mind when you e.g. struggle with a level or a boss. Of course I can also understand the devs. They do this for a living and they have to decide witch business model is the best for them. I thinkt that Rocketcat games make it right. They offer a early buyer bonus and sale + the IAPs are cosmetic and for the fans which would like to to support the devs. The worst price model from my point of view was decently - RIP - eliminate... Playing without making progress was so frustrating...
Freemium is terrible, pay to unlock chapters are OK, but pay to buy in-game-money and items or anything else other than None-imbalance-things is really bad.
The new atari centipede origins is ridiculous...who is gonna pay $100 for coins in that game? That just demonstrates somebody's outrageous greed to me. Deleted.
depends... To me, it doesn't have to be that black and white; it depends on the game. When it comes to something like gameloft's recent model with Asphalt Heat, I don't really feel the need to pay extra money for actually "playing" the game. If the devs make more money by decreasing the overall cost of the app but adding some IAPs for lazy players, more power to them and less spending for me Other games, however, like doodle devil, should NOT have used the IAPs the way they did (let alone meddled with the fact that some people like me actually payed a dollar for the damn game, and now we can't even play the game without spending more). Furthermore, providing both often allows devs to increase the price of the one-time purchase due to the fact that $.99 increments are taken up by "bundles" of coins or what not (like triple town, which charges llike $7 for the full version, which would be outrageous should there be no IAPs) I say if a game makes it reasonable to be sufficient in a game by earning stuff w/o IAPs, then adding them is fine IMHO, especially if this drives the overall price of the app down. Take a game like Asphalt 6, for example. I blaze through that game without even the thought of buying extra crap, 'cause the game gives you ample money to do everything. But other games that force you to pay to keep playing (like those coin pusher games), are not cool. What it comes down to is this; if a game's functions are severely limited by IAPs, then they shouldn't have them (there are exceptions for this, however). Ideally, every game would be an up-front purchase every time, but then there would be no "free" games. Most freemium titles make bank, have a unique, different style of play, and their own niche in the market because many people are cheap-asses and don't pay at all (like myself). Being free allows the developer to have many customers download their app, then once people are addicted, target the 1% who spends outrageous amounts of money to keep "playing." If you don't like those type of games, don't play them! I agree some games were not meant to be made with IAPs, but if Farmville, for example, had no IAPs, people wouldn't call the devs "greedy," they'd just complain about the game being too hard to earn crap on your own. Just because a game has IAPs doesn't always mean the dev is greedy (although most of the time this is probably true), but maybe tailoring to rich, lazy players who have fun playing their game but suck at it. As for games like Order and Chaos, well, there should at least be an option to buy a "lifetime" membership." Games that offer both options, as I mentioned earlier, don't get near as much flak, and, once again, the "full, one time" upgrade can often be more expensive. The ONLY reason freemium games are so popular isn't because everyone pays, but since SO MANY people download it (as a result of its initial FREEdom (excuse the pun)), some are bound to be rich and lazy and sucky and willing to pay. Think about a $.99 game with IAPs, do you think many people pay for the IAPs? I don't, cause you have to pay for the game up front, and many people don't want to start by paying for a game they don't know if they like or not.
