I'm not a dev, but I thought it would be interesting to hear from the devs that are active on these forums about the growing trend (it seems) of devs changing the business model of an app AFTER release. Of course, I understand how difficult it is in the App Store economy to make money. But there seems like there's been quite a few devs that have a paid game, but later add in iAds and/or IAPs that make it difficult to continue to play the game without them. I'd give examples, but I'm not here to bash on any one developer. BUT a lot of gamers are getting frustrated by this trend. It just makes us feel like not buying from these developers again. Heck, if the game is going to go free with ads or free with IAPs, why buy from them when a release first comes out? It's just an insult to have paid for something and end up with ad garbage or forced IAPs that you wouldn't have paid for to begin with. It's also happening even with new apps where descriptions have glaring omissions that just anger those who bought it (ie., 40 levels -- but not telling you that 20 of those are only available through IAPs). Personally, I feel that even if it means maintaining two separate apps (the original paid version and the new free version), that's the only way to keep both sets of customers happy. Yet some devs don't feel like they're at all responsible to their former customers. When an app isn't successful, do you feel pressured to do these things even at the risk of losing your current customer base? I'd rather pay more upfront than have this kind of mischevious tactics come into play later on down the road. With thousands of apps on the store, there probably is no way that Apple can control the deceptive practices of some devs (and a few of these are devs that were once well-regarded). But it's a scary trend.
While I totally understand the customer point of view and agree that there is ethical issues with some developers, my first reaction would be to blame the market. The market is totally overcrowded and has about 90% of the income sent toward 10% of the developpers. The average developper is more or less working for free to provide games to gamers. So some of them are not trying to get more income, but some income. Perhaps that does not excuse some behavior, but it might explain a few things. A developer A tries a paid business model B. No results are obtained, so he switches to a free model C. Because a paid game going free generates much more attention than a new game starting free, he simply has to keep the original game otherwise he'll end up with another failure. That said, some developers already successful are still using dodgy tactics... I wish the income was more evenly distributed, making it less greedily attractive to profit-only-looking people, and allowing more developers to make a living out of their passion and hard work. This might rebalance things a bit between offer and demand, because right now the pressure is really going toward the freemmium model...which is probably going to be overcrowded too very soon...
I agree with both of you. Maybe Awp69 should be appreciate with the freemium, and understand that developer doesnt always make profit by spending effort in making the games. Secondly, its doesnt always happen to game market, where some online ads, merchants and even Oracle product doesnt always tell you everything u get in the app So, my advice is just to accept the norm, sit back and relax with your freemium.
Yep, I also agree and as a gamer AND as a developper I don't like this trend. I'd rather continue with a premium model for all games, with the user ratings as a good indicator of quality, and a minimum price of 4.99 . I mean, seriously, if a game is good, he MUST be worth a pint in a bar. And there is no game that doesn't cost 15000$ to develop, so even at 5 bucks it's hard to be profitable. But the market is not like that currently, so I totally understand the devs that changes their business model and try other stuff to survive and be able to make another game. Somehow, the power is also in the player's hand. If they like a game and paid it 0.99$, and don't want the dev to change the business model, they'd better support it as much as they can. A little facebook post, a good rating, this cost nothing and helps a lot an indie dev.
Edited: Too much info sorry! But I will say this, the model is attractive to me as a developer (10x more sales!) and as a player (no risk to download and good games I'll play enough to earn in game currency anyway)
I guess one of my main concerns is more about changing the business model without exempting already-paid customers. I've seen games -- and I'm not sure how they do it -- where they've implemented ads or IAPs without affecting current customers. I completely understand a devs need to change the business model and know that you need to make money to survive. But there's really no other industry that can do something comparable. You don't buy something at a store and then suddenly, because demand wasn't as great, get a bill in the mail. Or the product changes into something that wasn't what you bought. To me the best solution is to re-release the game separately under the new model. I'm a computer programmer and we clone programs all the time. And yes, it is a bit of a pain to maintain both versions, but we do it because of customer needs. And it usually doesn't take as much effort as it seems after the intial changes are made. Any updates for bugs, etc. are the same. I don't like the freemium trend at all unless it's treated like a "lite" and you pay an IAP to upgrade to the full version. It's the nickel and dime consumable pressures that are being put in a lot of the freemiums that is disturbing. I agree, the App Store market is part of the problem. Games ARE priced too cheap. I just think it's unethical to add ads, etc., to games where people previously paid for them. There was a thread for a particular game, which again, I won't name, where the developer actually did have two separate versions: a paid ad-free version and a separate ad-supported free version. This dev ended up pulling the paid version all together and put ads in an update for previous paid version (and hid what the update was for). These are the kind of actions that I don't understand. There comes a point where, yes, changes must be made if you want to make money. But there still has to be consideration for those who were your earliest supporters. These are the people that are most likely to get your games in the future and, without their support, you wouldn't have even made any money.
I'd totally agree that a customer should not end up having to pay for a product 'twice' through an update. I'm sure that there are ways to detect if the player had a previous version and deal with it accordingly... Apple has no rule regarding this kind of behavior, it is the responsability of every dev. In my opinion devs should take care of their customers, a good relationship is a win-win situation. They might make mistakes, but they can also fix them. At least the people can easily complain through iTunes reviews and let other people know if something is amiss.
What we did with the game that changed models is early adopters who paid $0.99 got up to $5.99 in the currency (depending on how much they played). In our opinion we thought this was more than fair, but I suppose I should let you guys let me know!
I'm not a dev. I apologize for not reading the conversation here but I'm curious, what's wrong with iAds?? If they don't hinder gameplay, why do players care? I like anything that helps devs, selfless of me, I know. Hopefully someone can explain to me why they would complain about such things, please.
Subjective: To me, an ad in a game is like a mosquito in the room, a dent in a car, or a curry stain on a fine shirt. A game with ads is blighted. It just gets on my case. A dev generally works up an atmosphere with art and then plonk, like something out of the sky (not rain). Objective: An ad (during actual gameplay) often does hinder gameplay. It takes screen real-estate that could have been used for the game (or it is just plastered over part of what the dev actually wanted you to see originally). A dev might even compromise the gameplay to make room for the ad. Some ads mess up gameplay by being close to where you would normally touch to control the game. Another thing that really bothers me is that some games with ads will crash the moment the network goes down.
As a developer: We've been in a situation before where a paid game generates very little income and it would be beneficial to switch it to free + Ads/IAPs. As a result we looked for a solution that wouldn't hurt the 'early adopters' - for example the ads would be disabled for them I think this is morally acceptable, isn't it ? You paid, you get stuff for free However, a problem arises - as developers we have absolutely NO WAY to verify if someone has paid for the game or got it for free: 1) We have no access to any billing information of anyone 2) We have no access to any history of purchases 3) We can't ask Apple's servers if that person has gotten the game before it went free or after In general - Apple doesn't provide any kind of help here We thought about a few solutions, but they all have drawbacks: 1) Store UDIDs of the buyers on our servers and check with them later on - will work fine... until you change your device. Also - some people think it violates their privacy 2) Store some data in device's memory - but the data will be removed if you delete the app and reinstall it Both methods would also fail if you download the game on another device. There's no way to identify that it is "YOU" So... Well, we've never done it. But we might... And even though we've spent many hours looking for a morally acceptable solution, it seems such a solution doesn't exist If only Apple attached a tiny file saying: "Purchased for X on date Y", without any additional information - that would be enough
Again that's just my own personal developer opinon, but this method sounds like a good compromise. While not perfect, it would solve about 90% the problems, reducing drastically the amount of potential insatisfaction.
MAN, there has been a lot of talk about this lately. There was a whole thread started about this in the General section. It got a lot of good responses, IMO. It's nice to see the developers' perspective as well! Here's the thread: http://forums.toucharcade.com/showthread.php?t=114009
^ completely off topic.. -.- that thread is mostly people complaining about freemium games in general. Bump? For the record, I too am against ads that hinder gameplay (ex: show up while playing, unclosable, etc) especially in a paid app (!!) Be it free+ or premium. Someone intelligently answer this please. I dare say I get the feeling Some people are being cry babies. No offense.
I think it started off as complaining, but if you read completely through it, there are some valid points on both sides!!! I don't think it's off topic. Plus, I think that devs would want to read something that is from the group of people that actively support their games on this thread. And, I meant that in the least arrogant way possible! Again, if you read completely through it there are valid points on both sides, some of which were posted by me personally. Not once did I complain and say BOOO, I want this moel to cease to exist.
I question if you took the time to read the first post before spamming your opinion on freemium business into this thread. A quote from the topic creator: He/She then goes on to talk about iAds and freemium models but I believe it was based on the topic of cheating the early customers into unforeseen circumstances. Correct me if I'm wrong.
First off, I take offense to being told i'm spamming this thread! I've done nothing but try and help out devs and users since I've been a part of this forum. I don't know about you?!? Within the two months I've been here, I've actively helped devs, answered an immense amount of questions, and started an entire thread for impressions! I don't mean to come off cold and calloused but that's how your posts feel! Yes, I read every post in this thread; thank you very much! The thread that I posted is not only about freemium models, but also about what's being talked about here, so I pasted the link. Correct me if I'm wrong. I reread it again, and maybe I misinterpreted some of the first post; that happens! I still think that all of this ties into the overall picture. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I think that the original message was edited, it all started as an intertwined discussion. Once one side, there's the global aspect of Freemium. There's nothing to do about it, the market pressure established this trend and its going to keep booming. It already reached the more traditional PC market and will continue to grow (sadly, because I don't like it either as a gamer). On the other side, there's the acceptable pratices in the Freemium model, and that can be discussed about.
Wasn't worked up (well, maybe a little), but was just expressing myself in a thoughtful manner. It's cool!
