Paid with IAP, a bad idea?

[Ologon]

Hi everyone,

I'm going to release my first game on the app store soon, but I need suggestions on whether I should include IAPs or not.
Since my game doesn't fit for the freemium model, my idea was to build a paid app with IAPs and a demo-like lite version.
The IAPs are like a cheat mode which would allow the player to beat the game quicker, useful for less skilled players, but patient players with moderated skills would not need them at all.

However I'm afraid that seeing IAPs in a paid app would annoy potential customers. Is it better not to include them at all?

[Fleabag323]

I'd say it's fine as long as the IAPs don't affect the leaderboard, or if they do, then change it so you can only go on the leaderboard if you don't use what the IAP gives.

[Ologon]

Hi! thank you for you suggestion.

No, they don't affect the leaderboard in any way, nor the achievements. They just facilitate the completition of the game

[Rubicon]

You will hear a lot from the vocal minority about this, but I would suggest ignoring them.

Our game is $2.99 with some iap expansions, and despite the usual bellyaching from kids, we're converting iap sales at over 20%. That is a good coversion even in a free game.

The key is to get the valuation right and make sure the iap's are actually optional imo.

[timedblades]

Yeah. Making it optional is the true use of iAP. Some devs think they can get away with making the game so difficult that you can't even pass it without the iAP, which is forcing you to buy something. Make it attractive, make it optional, and you have a good iAP formula

[Blackharon]

Originally Posted by Rubicon

we're converting iap sales at over 20%. That is a good coversion even in a free game.

Understatement of the year award goes to...

[fitani]

It would be quite annoying if only IAP could help me to get through the game.
While, in your case, I think it is good to provide IAPs. As you said, it is useful for some less skilled players, as well as less patient players.

[Santillo]

Originally Posted by timedblades

Yeah. Making it optional is the true use of iAP. Some devs think they can get away with making the game so difficult that you can't even pass it without the iAP, which is forcing you to buy something. Make it attractive, make it optional, and you have a good iAP formula

I am totally agree with you. No developer should forcing the user to use iAP for the completion of the game. Game design should be moderate.

[PodCubed]

Originally Posted by Blackharon

Understatement of the year award goes to...

^

Yeah, going to agree. I think nothing is wrong with IAP, as long as it doesn't 'force' the IAP onto them.

[DemonJim]

I am calling this post, "The Good, The Bad and the Ugly":

The Bad: One aspect of IAP I personally don't like is when you can buy extra lives / continues to get a higher score - it basically ruins the game because it means the high score tables are entirely about who is willing to spend the most money to get to the top not who is the best at the game.

The Good: I think the standard freemium model of IAP is great though - free to play with limited one-off IAPs to unlock the full game and/or extra content. I'll be doing that next - it's far tidier and easier to manage than having a separate Lite version.

The Ugly: I just think IAP is really easily abused when it is used for consumable items, as in you can keep buying the same IAP again and again and you need to do it to play the game properly. Don't buy it and all those little characters you've been nurturing will all DIE A HORRIBLE DEATH. When abused it gives IAP a bad image, particularly when the game is aimed at children (that is definitely not acceptable IMO)