IAP open letter

By and large this is a description of an unlockable demo, which is a great (and tried-and-true) strategy. It's also something that works now on the app-store, albeit there's one caveat - the unlockable version tends to dilute your rankings; even if you charge say $5 for the unlock, you are not counted amongst the $5 games, you're counted amongst the free games.

That said, we are moving towards (perhaps even in) an era where in-app-store ranking-based visiblity is meaningless for all but the <0.1% of games that manage to hit the leaderboards. For the rest of us, our visibility now must come from outside the appstore, because we're nigh-impossible to find amongst the tens of thousands of other games.

Yeah. A puzzle I'd really like to crack is how to get the best of both worlds. How to design a game that makes it possible for whales (big IAP spenders) to exist, but doesn't become pay-to-win.

The reason whales would be nice is that basically they're money left on the table, if you don't have a way for them to pay in. They're crazy-rich, they have no problem dropping huge amounts of cash on something they love, but ... the only reason they usually don't is there's no easy way for them to do so. They're a perfect example of "mindshare and timeshare" saturated, but not money-saturated consumers. You're already eating up all their disposable free-time; it's crazy not to also be taking their disposable income if they want to give it to you, but can't.

It's possible and relevant to this discussion that it may be that the only reason to have IAP, at all, is to enable whales. If you're just hoping to milk $10 out of a player and let that be that, it makes more sense to simplify and just charge that upfront. You only bother with IAP if you're hoping some people will pay way more than that.




So how, then? It seems like in order to have whales, you must have some means of recurring payment in order for one person to pay thousands of bucks. There's just no way for one-time unlocks to do that, unless you put them at a level of cost where they're almost explicitly an act of patronage (like some sort of $500 VIP pass).

What I'm unsure of is what's necessary to motivate whales to pay. So at the risk of a wall-o-text, here are some thoughts I've had on the subject - mind you this speculation is specifically geared towards "allowing whales to pay a lot of money, whilst people without money don't have to". This isn't just general speculation about IAP:

• that example from the wired article is pretty much preying on people's competitive and/or "team/clan/buddy supporting" instincts. This flatly requires pay-to-win, because it is by definition about boosting your odds. I don't like this for obvious reasons - but also I dislike this because it forces your game to be competitive when many aren't naturally so.
• one related example which I don't think is so distasteful is "pay to rush" - in a non-competitive game, being able to pay to skip things you don't like. Given e.g. a non-ranked, non-pvp diablo-style game, being able to pay to get stuff you (or your friends) would otherwise have to grind.
• perhaps the best form of this is, I think, stuff like D3's "real money auctions" where instead of just selling progress directly from the game-creators, you are in fact allowing players to get some of the money too. I really am curious to see how this pans out for D3, because this seems to eliminate most of the problems caused by the game-creators themselves selling things. Chiefly, it lets the hard-working grinders force the people skipping the hard work to pay for the privilege - specifically the "cheaters" pay the very people who played fairly for the privilege of "cheating". It's like robin hood stealing from the rich.
• another angle is special editions and donations (NIN a while back had a good example of selling "limited edition" albums for a steep, steep price - including lots of physical product like artbooks, etc). This could totally get into kickstarter territory where you go way out of your way to pamper a patron - including things like if someone donates $10k, they get to meet the creator, get a tour, etc.
• one thing which isn't done enough, I think, is time-based subscriptions; things where you sign up for a subscription, but only pay according to how much you actually play. The problem with this is this doesn't correlate with how wealthy the player is - this is no good for people on a tight budget, they just can't pay. Zynga-alikes tend to do this by allowing you only a small window per day, but that doesn't cater to people with little disposable income, but tons of time. I would really love to figure out some way to make this charge whales a bunch, but charge time-rich/money-poor people almost nothing. One idea I haven't seen done is a setup where you can actually grind-away your subscription cost - you can do things in-game that nullify the real-life money it would otherwise charge. My design problem on this is that constantly having to keep some task in mind to not trigger automatic payments would be annoying. Perhaps rather than automatic payments, though, it could be some sort of progression toll, like paying fares for mandatory in-game transit between regions? Where you can get it by "paying time" and doing something in the game, but where it's a matter of arguable convenience that rich people can just pay to skip (but not earn any sort of character progression, just to travel).
• a common thing TF2 does is conspicuous consumption, which seems to work out really well for them. For those unaware, it's a competitive shooter game, and they allow you to costume your characters in a gameplay-agnostic way which gets payed for with real money. You can run around in fancy hats and such, and it's just for looks. The problem with this is that paying for vanity requires an ability to promenade - to show it off. It doesn't absolutely require MP, but it's close to doing so. Perhaps a key misconception is it may not be necessary at all to promenade unto complete strangers (i.e. Massive-MP); this may work totally fine just for games you play only with your friends.
• lastly as mentioned above, there is an idea of some sort of special VIP-pass thing which would confer some sort of super-special privileges on players. The problem with this is that making these worth paying for is often a ton of work for the development team, and/or would allow people to buy what are essentially mod-like (or just highly-influential positions in an MP game, which leaves you in a very awkward position if these people abuse their purchased power). Either you give them custom classes/content/etc which takes a bunch of work to make, or you just unlock already-made dev powers which lets them screw-around and possibly screw-over other players. For an idea of the custom content, it would be like paying to be a noble/king/lord/chief in a game like WoW - it's only worth paying for if they give you a bunch of special things to do as such a character, and that takes tons of extra content-creation. A counter-idea is that maybe it's okay to unlock god powers if they also unlock and can only use it on their own custom virtual server. That has a traffic problem of being kinda lonely, but if it's officially sanctioned, it would be okay to advertise it through the official network and let regular players join it (as long as they know what they're getting into).

I can't think of any other options off the top of my head, but I'm sure this isn't exhaustive. Some of these options seem way nicer than others; the pickle is that almost all these options have a huge effect on, or outright require certain game designs.

And that is exactly the problem - how to get money without compromising one's game design.

 

I think it'd be useful to this discussion to establish a benchmark of a freemium game (the lowest you can pay upfront) that is fair about IAP but is also financially successful. PunchQuest and Outwitters are two of my recent favorites because they are very fair but unfortunately they make no money.

Pocket Planes/Tiny Tower maybe? How's Nimblebit doing?

 

If I see free, I just don't download anymore.

 

Just want to say very cool to see a thread like this stay on topic, with actual thoughtful and respectful posts.

 

Yeah, thanks guys - even those stating that any whiff of IAP whatsoever causes them not to touch a product are being civil and honest. It's cool - maybe we'll actually brainstorm some useful ideas here.

 

I think an important part of this is the percieved greed of those implementing various ftp models.

The brainstorm we've been having over our next title is pretty much trying to lowball the "required" spend to just a few dollars per player to get the full experience, whilst massaging in some stuff to catch those who want to spend more on fluff items.

For example there will be nothing you can buy for a combat advantage, so the game doesn't become pay to win, but getting more characters (via either time or money) does give the player more choices about how to fight.

There will always be some Pavlovian reactions, but "I won't buy any game with iap" is no more profound than "I won't buy any driving game" and it's best to factor those out of the thinking - you can't please everybody. However there are definitely fair ways to make a freemium game work for both the dev and the players, and it's the dev's responsbility to find them.

 

I hate iaps; I think that's obvious. But you fundamentally misunderstand thr free to play model; to be more precise, those freemium games which are polished but contain expensive and sometimes necessary iaps.

They don't want you're money. They don't care if you play their game, though they would like you to dowload it to boost their app's position in the charts.

They (devs, publishers) are after exactly the consumers you described at the beggining of your post: people who have face difficulty controlling their impulses.

Those people you describe who spend 100 bucks? They are the ones generating the largest share of gross revenue. Nearly ever popular FTP game is kept afloat by a tiny percentage of people who spend ridiculous amounts of money on iaps. At least on a particular game.

While I hate the freemium model, I have little sympathy for those who drop 100 bucks on...let's be blunt, a cell phone game.

If they didn't exist, I wouldn't have made over 2 thousand dollars over a decade ago by selling items I found in Diablo 2 on Ebay.

In a way, it was Diablo 2 that paved the wat for some of this insanity. I was flabbergasted that I could find a collection of pixels that hade some rudimentary math attached to it, then sell it online for about a thousand bucks.

Around that same time, I bought a Cartier automatic watch for about 3 thousand. Many people would see that as a waste of money. Guess what though? That thousand dollar sword (The Grandfather, for those who are curious) is worth squat now. My watch? I wouldn't say it was an investment, but I could sell it today for more than I purchased it for.

 

That adds nothing to the discussion whatsoever. I think we get that you think people paying lots for stuff in games makes them morons, but that's just your opinion. By extension I presume you think developers selling stuff to them makes them greedy and immoral.

What you're saying here is that anyone that spends money in ways you don't agree with is basically an idiot. Well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but those people aren't seeking your blessing. I personally would get no sense of satisfacion from owning a watch and would hate to wear it in case I broke it. But I have spent thousands on MODO in the past and had immense fun doing so.

What I really, really don't understand is why the laws of supply and demand is suddenly abhorrent if you do it on an iPhone. There are people out their willing to spend $1000 on my game? Fantastic, where are they? I seriously need to find them and sell them what they want to buy...

 

I used to not care about IAP but lately it's started being abused. Probably because developers see the top grossing games are almost always ones with IAP currency and they're trying to get a piece of that action.
Consumers have gotten used to free and $99c games but developers keep pushing the envelope making full blown console games that can't make a profit unless they trick people with IAP.

So now I dont play anything with IAP currency. It's not a problem because there are plenty of other full games available for purchase.

Most of the games I've spent money on are the ones with a free demo. If I like it I'll I purchase the full almost immediately. I'll even pay up to $20 if I think it's worth it.

 

Interested to read more about this topic?
I found some interesting discussions, statements and articles:


http://www.gamesbrief.com/2012/10/should-there-be-an-upper-limit-on-iap-spending/

http://www.reviewlagoon.com/?p=758

http://www.reviewlagoon.com/?p=518

 

Thank you! I am in the same boat in that I dislike the Freemium model of games and would prefer to just buy my game right out. I am okay with buying content tgat extends a game but I am not going to spend money on virtual currency when you inevitably get into that struggle with almost every Freemium model game where the model starts to effect the fun factor or sets up pay hurdles. I spent about $20 this week on games and I usual spend about that much every week if not more on buying new games. Need for Speed, Galactic Phantasy Prelude, about 3 Krpgs I had been meaning to get, Fantashooting, 4 of the Kniezer Reiner games I had meant to get, Wall Street Titan, and I can't remember what else off te top of my head! If I buy an app and it has expansion content, you better believe I am buying that content!


I'll blow $20 on an app like TWEWY (heck, that week alone I spent $60 on the AppStore) so let's leave assumptions at the door that in assuming gamers are cheap. Some gamers want a proper gaming experience and not one that hinged on profiteering getting in the way of the gameplay. I'm a completionist when it comes to aming, but there is no economically sensible way to get everything in a Freemium model game without thousands of hours or tens to hundreds of dollars. It goes against my gamer mindset of "work to get every weapon or item"

Freemium I guess works for the Casual gamer, but not so much for the Core gamer. It's not about being cheap, it's about placing a value of worth on the product vice that amount of fun, work and inevitable frustration one will meet when faced when meeting that economic models push to want more money. The are very few Freemium games that I will tolerate it a a gamer no matter how fun the game initiall seems.

Contract Killer 2, Sci-Fi Heroes and Zombiewood come to mind of recent. All fun games. All games I deleted and refuse to play because they block the fun of ge game early and fast with paywalls. I have to pay real money for throwing knives and they are consumable? No thanks! Every weapon other tan the default is only purchasable with hundreds of IAP bucks yet a $4.99 bundle only nets you like 50 of those bucks in Zombiewood? No thanks! Conversely I threw $5 at Punch Quest. It gave me a pleasant game experience and didn't try to keep any of the game out of reach with a paywall!


I am a child of 70's I grew up in arcades. I expected the industry to move past this model, not come full circle right back to it, and worse, not on hardware they had to pay for but hardware I had to pay for! Give me a full game, no strings attached and perhaps sell me some content to expand that game and I will pay. Developers put themselves in this rut, not consumers. If developers stick together, perhaps form a guild and hold others to the tenants of making full games at full or at least modest prices, and held each other to it then perhaps things would change. If you constantantly give consumers the option of free they will choose free... As they should as they should be looking after their interests as a consumer just as you are as a developer.


Don't fault them for being reasonable... At the end of the day it is my duty to myself as a consumer to get the best price for the item for what I want for me according to how I value you it; not to ensure the profitability of someone else as that is their interests. It's only this new lurking mindset online that somehow we should feel bad and support the developer; they know the volatile nature of the market they work. I'm not trying to be mean rather just bluntly honest. As such the industry needs to change and find a new way to fund, collaborate and sell games without making them so disposable...

 

I don't see how developers put themselves in the rut, though. The App Store is a very consumer-driven market, and it's simply the nature of the beast that a vast majority of that market has declared with their wallets that freemium games and their like have some of the best chances of becoming profitable in a meaningful way for developers.

We can sit here and claim that we'd pay $10 for a "high quality" game until the cows come home-- but while I have no doubt that many people on this forum would back that statement up with their money, it wouldn't change the fact that "core gamers" don't have a strong enough presence on the app store to shape the course of the market as a whole.

I wish we did, don't get me wrong. But as things stand now, the writing is on the wall.

 

Totally agree, like you say we (core gamers) might say 'quite happy to spend $10 on a game' but the figures seem to suggest the vast majority would wait for a price drop/or free before getting the game.

I'm still stunned so many people wait for games to be free considering how cheap they are in the first place. Think companies should sometimes wait till they do a price drop, so many people assume they'll get a price drop a week or two after release they seem to wait.

 

True to both above comments, I guess you guys are right. It does explain the Android market to which has a whopping 70+% of the games on its store which are free/mium... I guess there is no ground for us then, and wait as premium titles trickle and dwindle away more each day. Either I am to accept potentially great games marred by (IMO) by IAP digi-currency models or wait as premium games dwindle and begin to trickle away or worse move to this new model. I see this platform as a great one for gaming, but I also believe that if there was a bit of unity, an association to hold the industry to a standard than perhaps we would move past this. I still feel that developers somewhat put themselves in this rut though and compromise profitability over vision. You can recover from making a bad game, sure you may have to work for some one else, but it isn't like it was ten years ago where if your game company went under you were probably not going to find a new job in that industry any more. And that's speaking from personal experience. I guess I am a dreamer...

 

I believe there is one simple solution to all of this.

Apple need to make the minimum cost of anything 3 bucks. That would fix everyones problem.

 

Is it true on Android that if you buy a game you can get a refund up to a certain time afterwards ? (Eg 10 mins or more ?). So you can try the game out and if its rubbish you can then get your money back ? May be wrong just think its quite a good idea, like you can 'try' the game for a bit before deciding whether to buy it.

Do think games should be a minimum price (and no sales) but there is so much garbage in the app store (combined with great games) it would be good if you could 'try' the game for 5 or 10 minutes

 

That's correct - I think it's 15 minutes. And it's definitely a good idea, especially on Android with all its compatibility problems.

My other inspired fix would be to change the developer license fee from $99 per year to $5,000 one off, up front.

 

Your purpose for this is to limit the number of developers?

 

'Kinda' get what you mean by that, it'll reduce the devs to larger companies but might hurt the old fashioned 'bedroom coder' type of 1 man band.

Still think the minimum pricing of apps should be higher