I posted this in Other Discussion but I'll post it again, as I'm curious how others feel about it too. I'm not a developer, but I have been following iPod gaming since the click wheel days, then early iPhone games, then the iPad. I think I speak for the majority of gamers on this site and many others when I say we do not like freemium games. Usually. There are exceptions but for the most part the game, and company behind it, are in it for just the money. And they get this money by providing the least amount of content possible that will still sell. And it shows too. There a very distinct line between Freemium and IAPs/DLC. I cant stand any freemium games, from smurfs to farmville. There's a full, fun game sitting there, and they cripple it with the need to buy X items to continue playing. I realize it's a successful marketing strategy for hundreds of games, but that's just how I see it. It shows you instanly where the devs priorty is, money. IAPs are a different story. They augment a game, enhance and make it something more than it was before. This could be added levels, items, money, whatever the case may be. But nothing is taken away from the game if you don't buy them. You don't have to wait 4 hours to play again. The Freemium games are so high in the charts because the other games are one time sales, with no profit potential after the initial sale. This skews the numbers to make it seem as if these freemium games are high quality, or at least worth buying, which is seldom the case. There should be separate charts. I hope this trend stops where it stands. It entices devs into coming up with more convoluted ways to trick people who don't know better into wasting their money on levels/biscuits/seeds/energy/random way to continue playing. If games like we rule, smurfs, touch pet dogs or cats, or farmville were paid games, without the ridiculous IAPs, I'd be first in line to try them, cause they do seem fun. As of now, I won't even consider buying or recommending a freemium game over a game that's many times better, with actual value. Ask yourself, or anyone serious about iOS gaming: Cats/dogs/seeds/time/levels/coins > Aralon/Infinity Blade/NOVA/World of Goo/Real Racing 2 And they will tell you it's just not true. More power to casual gamers with deep pockets, but I'll take a real game any day
Well, first, let's be clear on the conventionally accepted terminology: DLC: Downloadable content. These are the things that augment games with extras like outfits for characters, bonus characters, levels, etc. The key word here is content. It adds to the game. Preferentially, DLC is generally not required to play the full game unless the game itself is a free lite version and allows upgrading to the full game through DLC. IAP: In-app purchase. This may or may not be content, so it includes DLC but is a broader term to describe any spending of real money within the game. It could simply be consumables like health, lives, seeds, or whatever. Developers may or may not follow these conventions for describing in-game purchases, but just for the purposes of this thread let's be clear on what we're referring to here. DLC I don't mind. If it's a freebie upgradable to full in-game, then that's just fine -- cool, even. I don't have to go back to the App Store to grab the full version and then delete the lite. If it's extra, optional content that is not required to play the game start to finish -- and if the game itself is not artificially foreshortened to encourage the purchase of DLC -- then that's totally fine, too. As long as the money that I paid for the game at the outset gets me a full game, then I can decide at any time whether I want to opt-in to the extra content as I see fit, depending on how much I decide I like the game. Games whose economy primarily revolves around consumable IAPs are fine with me, too. Games like Farmville or whatever, where IAPs are available to get ahead quicker, that's fine with me. I neither like nor play these games, so I can simply not buy them and let others spend their cash on virtual merchandise. I differentiate these games based on the fact that it is more or less expected that you'll be opting in to IAPs, so you know what you're getting yourself into at the outset and are prepared to spend money on it. Freemiums are hit or miss for me. There are some freemium games that give you the impression that they are free, fully fleshed out games you can download and complete for free. The problem, though, is that often the games are made in such a way that it is extremely difficult to play the full games without buying into the DLC. It's technically possible to do it, it's just not very likely. These are the freemium games I object to. They try to suck you into a free game that is usually pretty good, and you start getting into it only to realize that you're probably not going to pass this one particular part unless you buy enough DLC consumables to help you pass it -- and it probably won't be the only one. Toy Shop Adventures is one example I can think of that did this, and it really turned me off. Don't get me wrong, I don't expect anything for free, and it's nice when we do get something for free, but don't spit on my cupcake and tell me it's frosting. A full, free game with optional DLC it not the same as a "full" free game when it is deliberately tuned to make it extremely difficult to complete without buying into that option, such as being extremely skimpy with the powerups in Toy Shop Adventures. It is disingenuous and annoying. I would much prefer that developers either give the whole game a price tag, or just make the game a lite with the option to upgrade to full through DLC. Don't make the game artificially difficult to encourage consumable IAPs. Seriously, if Aralon did this with consumable health potions, for example, as much as I love that game, I'd delete it in a heartbeat. The bottom line though is that developers are in this for the money. Like it or not, any company that creates any product does so for only two purposes: To make money, and to serve as publicity. Sure, developers may be gamers themselves and may love what they do, but don't mistake that enjoyment for altruism. They're not here to be charitable, donating their time, money and talents for your entertainment. They're here to make a living -- hopefully, or at least augment their day job salaries for the low-to-no-budget indies. How they do that is up to them, and if you think they're being shady and misrepresenting their apps then the only real way to protest that is with your wallet: Don't give them your money.
I agree with pretty much everything you said. It may seem like a petty issue but it really frustrates me when I see games like zombie farm or smurfs so high in the charts. I know it's all opinion based, play what you want and all that, but my opinion is that games that exist to extract money from us shamelessly are garbage. I know they're in it to make money, but come on, draw the line somewhere. Any decent businessman can tell you, do what you love and the money will come. The IAPs that are required to pass certain parts of a game, or to keep playing for more than a few minutes are what really get me. People are actually spending real money on fake money. Not even physical fake money like monopoly, but DIGITAL fake money. If an indie dev includes the option to buy extra gold or equipment or whatever, I don't have a problem with supporting them, with the key word being option. I just hate the naivety of the average iPhone owner lol
I agree, you should see Gun Bros! It's $10 for 65 "warbucks", and then it's 240 warbucks for one of the better weapons. And there are DOZENS of uses for warbucks, most of them costing more than thirty warbucks. RIP-OFF. And people actually do buy them.
Exactly. I don't know the numbers exactly, but I imagine theyd make at least the same amount of money selling the full game, with a halfway decent store system in game, than by ripping people off left and right with the IAPs. Plus they'd have a better reputation, which would lead to more sales. This gets into the whole "why do devs seem to completely ignore the customer" issue. Like IB adding gold as an IAP by popular demand. I'd like to know how much the guy who demanded that is making from people buying gold. I could rant for hours about IB, and the problems I have with it. Id love to hear the reasoning behind freemium games. Reasoning that actually makes sense. People say that there are millions of people that enjoy them, but which one of those people would enjoy it less if the games weren't crippled?
Damn, you replied fast. And yes, I totally agree with you. The only problem is, they'll keep doing it because they don't have to put as much effort into those games as FULL, non-sh*t games, and they end up making even more money.
iOS gaming is my pass time between work, college, family, and all the other junk. So I jump at the opportunity to vent my frustrations to someone lol. Maybe I'll start posting rants about other iOS stuff too.. Your right though, it's easy money. The world would be a better place if there were more developers committed to creating fun, well priced products. I'll pay $60 if the game is $60 worth of enjoyment. Unfortunately, the corporate big shots and wealthy soccer moms who buy iPhones hardly know what the app store button does, besides give them that angry birds game everyone is talking about at the office.
the ability to buy more gold via IAP in IB has absolutely no affect on the gameplay. the game is the exact same experience as it was on launch day. there is no less gold available in the game than prior to the IAP option. i don't know whose idea it was to include this option in the update, but it has no impact on the experience and really shouldn't hinder anyone in their enjoyment of the game. if you like the game, accumulating gold is a painless exercise. if you don't like the game, you're not even playing it... i don't understand what the problem is...
It doesn't have any effect, which is why I couldn't care less whether it's there or not, it's that they said popular demand was the reason it was included that bugs me. Maybe it's unusual, but the way a dev handles public relations affects how I feel about their games. I highly doubt there was any demand for it at all, but I really don't know for a fact. I'd prefer devs be up front with things. If it's only there cause they think it will sell and make them money, don't say it's cause people demanded it. A small nitpick I know, but oh well, that's why I said rant
I think freemiums junk as well and as far as DLC is concerned I'd rather pay three times the price for a game that is full and doesn't nag me to buy anything I can't be the only one who avoids them like the plague. It's even more annoying to me knowing that most DLC is already in the game or made alongside it they just locked it to make more money later. Of course there are some exceptions I'm quite pleased to see Galaxy on fire 2 will have DLC additions.
I'm not saying that I like it, and in fact I lose a great deal of respect for a developer when they deliberately and artificially make their game more difficult or inconvenient to play in order to encourage IAPs without being clear on that point, especially if the IAPs are consumable (not of the buy-once variety). However, as long as a developer is clear on the point that IAPs are an integral or highly beneficial (in game terms) part of the game, I don't have any problem with it. If people want to continually spend money tending their farm or buying health or whatever, that's their business. It's not just iOS users who do this -- it didn't even originate on iOS. It originated in social gaming on Facebook (eg. Farmville), no doubt inspired by the artificial economies created around MMOs wherein virtual merchandise is traded for real cash. It's a business model that wouldn't have flourished if people weren't willing to shell out for it. Again, I don't like it and I think it's exploitive, but it's clear about its exploitation and it caters to a market that is willing to be exploited. I just want to be clear that I'm referring only to freemium games that employ consumable IAPs for a continuous revenue stream, not single-use IAPs, and then only those games that clearly rely heavily on these consumables in order to let a player advance themselves more conveniently or at a faster pace.
My take as a developer I am a developer and I put 1000's of hours into my games. I recently released a game thinking it would sell just because it was original, but it didn't I've sold 5 copies of it!!! I made a game with far less content and graphics before this game and it has sold 10-20 copies, but it had a free version, which is downloaded 30 times a day. Right now I am working on making a lite version of my game, which will be very similar, but slightly altered to make the less content more enjoyable (plus ads). This seems to be the only way a small indy can survive. My point is without the free content I get 0 attention and make basically no money! I know the 5 people who downloaded my game. Further more because I am making realistically no money all of the above ideas like Farmville seem much more appealing than making an original game.
I neglected to read the rest of the thread, but I disagree about Infinity Blade. The IAP are purely optional, they still give gold out at the same rate, and buying gold is just a way for people who are to lazy to at the game to level up. Here's what I hate: the ngmoco model. I actually liked their God game but all their games require Internet. Having an iPod Touch, that's hard to find all the time. I understand that devs want to make extra money, but they should make the game as two things, a). Make it where you don't need IAPs to progress(if they have to charge 99 cents instead of it being free, that's fine) or 2). Get rid of them and charge a higher price. From a devs standpoint, it does make sense. You let someone download the app and test it out, then once they get hooked, you make em pay more just by a tap of the button. Plus, the free app top 25 gets more downloads then the paid app 25, so they get more downloads which = more people playing their game=more people getting hooked=more people paying money
Keep in mind that "original" doesn't mean "good," just "different." I'm not making a judgment on your game specifically (I've never played it), I just mean that, in general, originality isn't a ticket to popularity. It still needs to be fun, and that's a very subjective thing. Just as important, it must be shown to be fun in your presentation of it. Most people use screenshots as the primary indicator of whether or not it's something they'd like to try, so if your screenshots don't immediately display something that people might want to try, it's going to be hard to sell it. What you describe though isn't the freemium model. It's the more common full/lite version, which I am fully in favour of. Freemium is a much murkier and controversial topic.
EDIT: compress your app .6 megabytes, so people can download it over EDGE(I think that's still the case) Edit2: I hate the collect mode, it's to easy, I can easily cheat and just tap whenever there's a turtle. I like the other mode though. Maybe you can replace the collect mode with something like, the guy is always running and you control him with the accelerometer and you tap to jump over rope and collect turtles. Anyways, I like the game idea, menus and your logo graphics need improvement, and maybe you can add different backgrounds to make things interesting I have a few suggestions, looking at your app. Lower it 99 cents, release a lite Do screenshots that show more gameplay Release a gameplay video Change your description to be more descriptive Post about it on every website they let you post on. You can't have dignity as a dev Run contests, anything to get people looking at your game Use those promo codes to get the word out Make a better icon, some people really care about that I can go more in detail once I play the game I am gonna review it on my website, and I just bought it, so now you got 6 buys
From a developers standpoint, I can see why they would make a game freemium, it does sell. My point is that you never see freemium as being a positive quality about a game. I've mainly seen games like ngmoco's, where you get to play for an hour when you buy it, then in five or ten minute bursts unless you pay them. No reviewer, professional or not, will look at the game and say "good graphics, nice sound and music. Oh and I enjoy that I have to pay again if I want to experience the game for more than a few minutes." Their unspoken justification is that the game is free usually, so your not losing anything by trying it. I fully support a good game being free, with an IAP to upgrade to the full version. This saves time and space. Its not the same with ngmoco types though, no. They have a game that, without the freemium aspect, is actually really good, but instead of giving you a full version after a while, or at all, you pay for bites of the full game experience. This isn't cost effective to the user, as nearly all these bites are over priced, and it's degrading the rest of the iOS gaming market as well. For the same price as a few berries, or the ability to earn exp for a few minutes, you could buy entire, fully developed games like Aralon, Space Miner, Real Racing 2, NOVA 2, World of Goo, Sentinel 3, and lots more. Instead of those games getting your hard earned dollars, smurfs gobbles them up, shooting it to the top of the top grossing list basically overnight, encouraging devs that they too can be this high in the charts if they master the art of freemium extortion. If freemium games had a place at all, it was as an experiment gone horribly wrong. Let's move on, please. I'm not alone when I implore devs to make something they can be proud of, and sell it for what it's worth.
Thanks for the feedback! Hey thanks for some solid feedback everyone I talk to just tells me they like it and it's original period. Well if you like it so much, why isn't it in the top 25 right... Thanks for the 6 sale I agree the collect mode is easy, but that's why it's first to kinda get you familiar with the game. I really like the accelerometer idea for a different mode in the future. I couldn't think up any better logo. Before I release my lite I will read your review and have an update accordingly. Saweet can't wait to read it! What is your website?
yeah, that's fair... i couldn't care less about the gold IAP. i'm never going to spend money on something like that. the first time i ever encountered something like this was in one of the tiger woods games for xbox a few years back. i spent three days straight building up my created golfer well enough to get online and whoop some butt and everyone else spent $4 on a fancy suit that boosts your stats to max. i think the whole concept is beyond lame, but if it doesn't affect the gameplay...if it doesn't affect my experience, like the freemium games do, i don't mind too much. but i hear you...doing under the guise of giving the customer what they want is pretty weak. although if they didn't have the request, why bother saying so? why not just put it in there? i wouldn't care how it came off if i were making the decisions...why bother trying to justify it?
Dream Some people dream of half a million a month from ads revenue instead of being forced to work a day job all their lives. That is whenever I can find a GOOD programmer to program my simplish game or share profits for free programmin g and Game Center setup. I dont see Backflip games complaining or others making that kind of money. I doubt if you would complain either if you were making that kind of cash
