How is Rinth Island escaping hate for its IAP?
There have been several interesting discussions here about consumers' responses to various forms of IAP. A general theme seems to be that it's easy for IAPs to set off waves of hate and bad reviews when they're perceived as manipulative or surprising, or as offering poor value.
As a paid-up-front game, Rinth Island seems to me to make the worst possible IAP mistake in that it disables an essential and simple feature, undo, unless you pony up more cash for an IAP. This is a puzzle game in which most missteps require either undo or restarting the level, so the lack of an undo feature is a significant impediment. I wouldn't say the game is unplayable without undo, but it's pretty clear the developer is trying to cause you some pain.
It's not my purpose to critique Rinth Island, which in many ways looks like a lovely game. I'm just puzzled by the fact that its provocative IAP scheme has provoked nary a peep from reviewers and from the usual horde of IAP kvetchers. Does anyone have a theory as to why this is so? What is it about the package that lets it slip past people's normally-hyperactive crippleware detectors?