I think everybody finds this abhorrent, but this isn't the fault of IAP or even virtual currency - it's four square at the feet of plain old greedy assholes. And what's more, they're lawbreaking greedy assholes. I'm no lawyer, but bait and switching is generally illegal everywhere it's identified and this scenario is only awaiting a legal test case I think. And rightly so. If a dev wants to switch sales models then whatever, but they should at least release a new, separate app that won't #### the customers who already paid.
Just because our next game is doing it, I do want to float this out there about virtual currency. Not trying to win anybody over, but I do feel it's important to further understanding on topics like these. Our next game is based around booster packs. You get a load of stuff for free and if you want more then you can buy some packs. We're trying to balance this so you don't need to spend 10 trillion bucks to get a good spread of stuff but that's by the by. The point I'm getting towards is that even though we're doing a freemium style game next, we could've got by without a virtual currency and just made it so you can purchase those boosters at 3 for a dollar as a direct purchase. What we actually designed was that you buy the boosters with virtual currency and it's this virtual currency that you can buy with real cash. This is an important distinction and despite the ignorant paranoia outburst risk, I'll list out every single reason why we went with this more complicated setup, they're all in the players favour. No, really. 1) Virtual currency can be earned in the game, so there is a real actual reward for players who play lots. We'd already have to design the game so that plenty of progress could be made, but now you get paid for it. Win-Win. 2) There are other ways to get gold that don't require actual money. One thing we have planned is get X gold for watching an advert. Another is we'll give you 200 for liking us on facebook etc. We get something out of that and so do you, so win-win there. 3) Plenty of countries don't actually have a way to pay for a game, so we have to able to do option 2) 4) This is more for our benefit, admittedly. We can pay our players for referring their friends to the game. That gets us some very valuable viral marketing and in return the player just has to send an email to a mate to get a lot of currency to spend. We couldn't do any of that without adding currency, and the same will apply to a lot of games that use it. Just don't play any where you have to sharpen a sword or buy fertiliser over and over. They are just a money making swizz and I don't approve of that as much as you all do.
@Rubicon In the end, a quality product that isn't designed to take advantage of the customer is what I tend to spend money on. I rarely purchase consumables and don't really like doublers or things like that, but there are exceptions. I just checked my purchase history, here is what I've spent on IAP: Punchquest - bought the coin doubler Heroes & Castles - bought some currency The Walking Dead - paid for full unlock Letterpress - paid for full unlock MLB At Bat - paid for full unlock Over four or five years and many hundreds of dollars spent on apps, the above are the only transactions I've made outside of purchasing the app. If I can achieve things in a game without buying IAP, I won't buy IAP. If I'm forced to buy IAP to progress, I'll delete the game. If the game is really something special, I'll spend a couple bucks, but that is clearly a rarity. I usually don't even pay attention to free games. Punchquest was an exception. So is RR3. I would much rather spend money on a balanced experience. If this balanced experience offers IAP to aid those with less motivation, that's fine...so long as it stays balanced.
Same here... Heck pretty much everything you said I agree with. I'm a gamer. I'm looking for fun games that interest me. I don't seek out freemium titles but I do play them if they are playable without the IAP. Devs often throw ads in to subsidize the development costs on freemium games. I'm ok with that as long as its reasonable use of ads and not full screen ads after every level or something. My money only goes to premium games. Which for some devs like Rubicon it means I'm not his targeted audience anymore. I'm cool with that, it's business and I'd like to see them survive. If he thinks he can do better as a freemium, that's fine but look at the freemium charts sometimes and what actually is in the top of the charts. It'll be free/trial versions of games and a mishmash of full games gone free, a few decent freemium games and a load of garbage. Breaking into that chartis going to be pretty hard.
I think in RR3's case, it is a love/hate relationship for most players, not just hate. It has a lot of great points like great grahics, driving, and content. But has a lot of dog dung like 20 hr timer waits, $100 real dollar cars, ai cars that just ram you for great damage, dual currencies, and is designed more for inapps in mind than fun. I think a lot of people are disappointed though in the destroying of the Real Racing name from what could have been one of the BEST games on ios into a game better named Real Auto Shop, but I personally wouldn't go so far as to say I hate it. A love/hate affair would be more appropriate, kind of like some boyfriend/girlfriend relationships I suppose.
I would disagree, the exception being that they can't cash out, for all other intents and purposes a 12 year is currently able to gamble. You might find that acceptable but I have a problem with it as I already made fairly clear. The simulated aspect is thin at best.
I've been watching this thread for a while and thought I'd toss in my two cents. I love I.A.P *gasp* I know many people on TA absolutely loath it, but in my opinion it's on the same level as a so called "premium" game. To me there's no difference from spending 0.99$ buying a coin pack in a game or paying 0.99$ to purchase a full game. In both instances you are reimbursing the developer for playing and enjoying there game. Another reason I enjoy freemium games is that it allows you to play the game before paying. In most cases it also allows you to choose a more specific dollar amount that you would like to give to the developer. Some people say that devs are trying to "trick" people into purchasing I.A.P's but ultimately you the consumer choose how much you would like to spend. If you don't think the game is worth how much it needs to be an enjoyable experience then delete it. No one is controlling your mind. Some of my favourite games are freemium and I am going to continue supporting freemium titles by buying I.A.P's. I honstly think a majority of none hardcore gamers (people who don't visit TA) enjoy freemium games and have no problems with I.A.P's. Anyways, there's my rant finished. I respect all of your opinions.
The ones I know don't spend a dime on freemium games. They just play within the limits thinking they are getting games for free because they bought an ios device. I'm not saying I know everyone, but amongst dozens of folks I do know with ios devices, none of them buy games or pay IAP. Many don't even know how.
From Alien Versus Predator thread: Although I agree with the preference for full front single price content; it is time for mobile gamers to take a step back and look at their unwillingness to compensate developers with purchases higher than $0.99 (or even $4.99 in AVP case). My perception is that indie developers end up nearly donating their game to the community (at an unrealistically low price point) to try to "break in" but larger studios that are better vested financially can demand fair compensation. Even $5 for a game is a bargain. I experimented with Steam a while back and there $9.99 for a title is a discount (and more than fair). Unfortunately the consumer market sets the demand for business models; not the business entities. If you don't like IAP then maybe go look in the mirror and ask yourself how many free full apps you've downloaded off App Store or how many time you've passed a promising game because you didn't want to send your single dollar. Did you buy Real Racing 2 at asking price or shrug it off to wait for a $0.99 sale?
So its ok for a 4.99 game to have iap and push people to get it but people are bad to wait for a 99 cent sale? I don't mind freemeium when its done right(which is hardly....city building games wise and RR3) but the paid to get reviewed people say otherwise I guess. I for one Rubicon look foward to your new game as I am for newer premeium titles.
Yes it is illegal and is a form of fraud. I've actually contact apple a few times on app store regarding fraud and companies doing less than legal business and have always been refunded but the app has always remained there so there is a legal powderkeg just waiting to explode, at least within America and the UK. Also I hear the excuse all too often "we won't do it again", quite frankly I've heard enough of those by now. Changing pricing is fine but changing fundamental nature of how an application internally works, after one has paid for services and then asking for extra money to obtain something now locked, that was already available to the consumer in the past is not. -------------------- -------------------- Out of interest, are a few extracts from UK legistlation on what is also considered unfair by law. 4.����Claiming that a trader (including his commercial practices) or a product has been approved, endorsed or authorised by a public or private body when the trader, the commercial practices or the product have not or making such a claim without complying with the terms of the approval, endorsement or authorisation. Happens all the time on the app store 11.����Using editorial content in the media to promote a product where a trader has paid for the promotion without making that clear in the content or by images or sounds clearly identifiable by the consumer (advertorial). Way too common 13.����Promoting a product similar to a product made by a particular manufacturer in such a manner as deliberately to mislead the consumer into believing that the product is made by that same manufacturer when it is not. Also common 14.����Establishing, operating or promoting a pyramid promotional scheme where a consumer gives consideration for the opportunity to receive compensation that is derived primarily from the introduction of other consumers into the scheme rather than from the sale or consumption of products. See this a lot 20.����Describing a product as ‘gratis’, ‘free’, ‘without charge’ or similar if the consumer has to pay anything other than the unavoidable cost of responding to the commercial practice and collecting or paying for delivery of the item. Not sure this one applies to online purchases, but I see this waaaay too much 26.����Making persistent and unwanted solicitations by telephone, fax, e-mail or other remote media except in circumstances and to the extent justified to enforce a contractual obligation. Yeah, need I say more on this one? Not really, other remote media is certainly covered here 30.����Explicitly informing a consumer that if he does not buy the product or service, the trader’s job or livelihood will be in jeopardy. Seen people do this on touch arcade so many times that it's becoming a Picard face palming commonality. There are a few other acts and legistlation that protect consumers from being ripped off and fraudulently scammed but I do not have the time to go through them all.
It's both I know a lot of people who are like nitghc1's people and they basically find the idea of paying for gaming, ANY gaming, the height of folly. These folks might have the paid version of Angry Birds on their phone and consider that to represent some sort of herculean expenditure for something as frivolous as being entertained. However, not a one of those people are what I would have ever considered gamers. These were not the people I was swapping 5 1/4" disks of Apple II games back in the high school computer lab. These were not the people I invited over to play on a coax cable based LAN when ethernet was still cutting edge and too expensive. These folks are the previously ignored audience that web devs created years ago with time wasting flash games played in office cubicles around the globe. On the other hand, of the people I would call gamers, there isn't one I know who shares even 1% of the typical blanket revulsion to IAP that is the common viewpoint on TA. They play what they like, and if they're having a good time, who cares about spending a few bucks here and there to reward the creators. Outside of web forums, where a confluence of factors seems to attract unrepresentative numbers, I just don't think it's any sort of commonly held principle. Folks in my experience are either the, "why would I spend money AT ALL to game?" types, or they're the, "who cares, it's $5, it's what I tip at the bar in a single sitting" types.
This almost seems like a checklist of what IS included in many apps development. If this was to end up in court Apple have possibly backed themself into a corner. By getting a slice of every IAP spent they are the biggest beneficiary of thousands of instances of inappropriate business models within the apps. If a superstore has a shop that is selling a bogus product then the shop is liable but if the store took a percentage of those bogus products then they would be in very hot water
If there ever was a class action lawsuit, I'm sure I would get that famous letter in the mail, and get a lot of money since I have spent so much money in the itunes store. It would be interesting indeed if that happened, and would do away with issues like addition of ads, freemium converts, and adding paywalls later in an update.
Going to throw in my opinion In free- 2.99 games you do not need every item in the game to be possible to get free. As long as you can play and finish or if endless enjoy the game without being pressured for IAP then it is not unbalanced or paymium/freemium Up from there you should be able to get everything included (Extra DLCs dont count)in a reasonable amount of time without spending any more money This is the way the App Store works Everyone expects great things for nothing or very little on iOS , yet they spend £60 pounds on the latest FIFA or COD and there are few changes from the last one 2.99 and up is regarded as premium. I spent more than that on the bus everyday . When you think about what amounts of time are spent developing games it is ridiculous how cheap they are. I hope big developers will bring console quality games to iOS but the consumers are happier with some Zynga freemium city builder. If we don't start buying full price games we will never see console quality games on iOS ..
I agree. This was something that rolled on from the early days of the App Store. However as development levels have risen consumers expenditure has not. The issue is that consumers have no idea what full priced is and what it looks like. Consoles charge a standard high price for their games and the consumer knows that they have paid for the complete product. It's the opposite on the App Store. You have NO idea what pieces may need to be unlocked via IAPs. Sadly people will always want shit for free. Others will want a black and white premium model. The trick is to find a balance that offers a clearer idea of what state the product is in. That way even if you may not like it at least you won't feel cheated
Freemium and IAP can be good both for devs and gamers IF devs are not too greedy creating pay walls all over the place to force IAP. All freemium games should come with a reasonable farming income so you'll have to farm if you want things but not pay walls where you get stuck and can't play on without paying. RR3 you can play forever for free and as you accumulate more cars you can play continuously. But if you really, really love a game you wouldn't mind putting in a few $$ would you?? You can't put a price on FUN. I play some games for $5 that I get much more fun out of than a $200 night out!! So to put $20 in such a game is cheap for me. The bottom line is you only pay if you really enjoy the game. Games which have multiple pay walls put me off so I delete them but other games I'm happy to pay for because its much cheaper than going out and I have a lot more fun for less$$. Also with freemium the onus is on developers to make a wow factor game as their income will depend on how much gamers like it so we see some really good games coming out. RR3 is a big gamble for the devs. They might get nothing from many but I supported them and paid in IAP what I felt it was worth. IGladiator on the other hand made it so difficult to advance without IAP that they shot themselves in the foot. Getting the right balance is not easy but requires moderation and not excess greed or the game will just reek IAP and turn people off.
You sayin' I'm not a gamer? i'll buy expansions because I have in the past. But I'm not about to buy fake crap with real money. Not to mention consumables are, well...they're gone once you use em. I've SOLD fake stuff, back when people made fun of the idea of purchasing game items. Made about a grand selling items in Diablo 2: Lords of Destruction on ebay. Just because people thought the purchasers' were crazy then but not now doesn't make it any less crazy. People are just fools with money and can be conditioned like dogs.
Oh, and for that matter, I played DOOR games on the Pheonix BBS, before graphical M.U.D.S existed. I got the Castle Wolfenstein demo when it came out...and I downloaded it on an 800 baud modem. My first game patch wasn't automatic. It wasn't online. Microprose (IIRC) sent me a patch for Megatraveller 2 by mail for sending in my registration card. And I think iaps, excepting expansions, are full of ****. Then again, I thought collectable card games were one of the most creatively devious scams I'de ever seen. But who cares? I guess I'm not a gamer.
